What specific cancer research programs did Trump's proposed budgets target for cuts?
Executive summary
The Trump administration’s proposed budgets and policy changes targeted large, across-the-board reductions to NIH and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) — including proposals that would cut the NCI by roughly 37% (about $2.7 billion) and shrink NIH discretionary funding by roughly 40% in some versions of the plan (reducing NIH to about $27–$28 billion) [1] [2]. Reporting and advocacy groups say those moves, plus caps on indirect cost reimbursements and freezes/terminations of specific grants, translated into halted cancer hubs and cancelled or frozen grants — for example, a $77 million freeze to a Northwestern Lurie Cancer Center “Cancer hub” grant and thousands of NIH grants frozen or terminated totaling billions [3] [4].
1. Big-picture cuts aimed at institutions, not just projects
The administration’s budget documents and media coverage describe major cuts to NIH’s overall discretionary budget (variously reported as a roughly 40% reduction to about $27.5–$28 billion) and a plan to consolidate NIH institutes — while preserving some institutes but proposing elimination or downsizing of others — measures that would materially reduce NCI’s funding and capacity [2]. The Guardian and New York Times put the proposed NCI reduction at roughly a 37% decline — nearly $2.7 billion — lowering NCI funding from roughly $7.2 billion to about $4.5 billion in the administration’s 2026 proposal [1] [5].
2. Specific cancelled/frozen grant programs and hubs
Investigations and grant-tracking projects reported the practical consequences: thousands of NIH and NSF grants were frozen or terminated in 2025, with about $2.3 billion in unspent funds across nearly 2,500 grants frozen or terminated; among the largest single hits was a $77 million freeze on Northwestern University’s Lurie Cancer Center “Cancer hub” grant [3]. Reporting by STAT, Forbes and others documents widespread pauses and delays in NIH grant-making that directly affected cancer researchers dependent on that funding [6] [7].
3. Program-level targets beyond raw NCI cuts
Beyond headline NCI reductions, the administration pushed policies that would cut or reprioritize funding across research areas: reorganization of NIH institutes, proposals to eliminate or shrink centers seen as “duplicative” (including centers focused on chronic disease and environmental health), and a cap on indirect costs for grants (a 15% cap was proposed at one point) that would reduce universities’ ability to support labs and infrastructure [2] [8]. Advocacy groups warn these policy changes translate into fewer awarded grants, curtailed center funding, and reduced capacity for multi-year cancer research programs [8] [9].
4. Defense and other agency cancer programs also hit
Cuts were not limited to NIH/NCI. Reporting shows the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs at the Defense Department were substantially reduced in stopgap funding measures, with notable cuts to breast and ovarian cancer research allocations and disappearance or reallocation of programs for pancreatic, kidney and lung cancers [10]. These reductions further narrowed the federal research portfolio supporting cancer subtypes.
5. Immediate impacts reported by researchers and institutions
Local and national reporting documents halted trials, paused center renewals and layoffs. University cancer centers reported grants coming up for renewal with uncertain approval; clinicians and center directors warned that anywhere near a 40% reduction in NIH funding would “do lasting damage” to long-term studies and clinical trials [11] [12]. Journalistic features point to interrupted lab work, canceled renewals of multi‑year center grants, and researchers being forced to seek alternative funding [13] [6].
6. Political and legal context — competing narratives
The White House framed many moves as re-focusing priorities, eliminating duplication and ending programs it labeled wasteful; critics framed them as dismantling vital research infrastructure. Congressional Democrats and research groups called cap policies and terminations unlawful and sought judicial relief; courts and appeals have become a battleground over some cancellations, with mixed outcomes reported [8] [5]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive list of every single named cancer project cut by the administration; reporting instead emphasizes large funding lines, hub freezes, and thousands of grant terminations [3] [4].
7. What we know — and what remains unclear
Reporting converges on these facts: major proposed percentage cuts to NIH and NCI budgets, freezes/terminations of thousands of grants totaling billions, and specific high-profile freezes such as the $77 million cancer hub [2] [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention a single, exhaustive public list of every cancer research program eliminated; instead, the evidence is a mosaic of budget line-items, institutional reports, and grant-tracking datasets showing widespread disruption [3] [10].
Conclusion: the administration’s budget and policy package targeted the funding architecture that underpins cancer research — big reductions in NCI/NIH funding, caps on indirect costs, and grant freezes/terminations — producing immediate halts to named hubs and thousands of affected grants while sparking political and legal pushback [1] [3] [8].