What specific NIH institutes were targeted in the administration’s consolidation proposal and how would their research portfolios be reallocated?

1. Which existing institutes were left standing and which were explicitly targeted for elimination or removal

The White House brief and contemporaneous reporting indicate that only three current institutes would remain “intact”: the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) ^{[1] [2] [4]}. At the same time the proposal would eliminate or move multiple existing entities: several outlets report that four NIH institutes or centers would be eliminated outright (with names varying across reports) and that the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and ARPA‑H would be moved out of NIH into the new Administration for a Healthy America or elsewhere in HHS ^{[5] [6] [7]}. Reporting also flags the proposed termination of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and cuts or elimination for the National Institute of Nursing Research, the Fogarty International Center, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health in some versions of the plan ^{[8] [6]}.

2. The new institutional architecture: names and intended groupings

Multiple briefings and leaks describe a reorganized NIH composed of eight new institutes with descriptive names that combine current missions: examples include a National Institute on Body Systems (folding in heart, lung, blood, arthritis and diabetes research), a National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research (combining neurological, eye, dental and craniofacial research), a reconstituted National Institute of General Medical Sciences incorporating genome research and biomedical imaging, a National Institute on Behavioral Health (merging alcohol, drug and mental‑health institutes), and other consolidated entities such as a National Institute for Child and Women’s Health, Sensory Disorders, and Communication—though different reports list slightly different sets and labels ^{[1] [8] [9] [10]}.

3. How research portfolios would be reallocated across the new entities

The plan shifts programmatic responsibilities from disease‑or population‑specific institutes into broader, systems‑oriented or methodology‑oriented institutes: for example, genomics, informatics and imaging programs slated to move into a consolidated general‑medical sciences institute; neuroscience, vision and dental research combined inside a neuroscience and brain research institute; and addiction and mental‑health research grouped under a single behavioral‑health institute ^{[1] [8] [9] [5]}. NIEHS’s environmental‑health portfolio is slated to reside within the Administration for a Healthy America, effectively moving environmental‑health research out of the core NIH structure ^{[7] [2] [5]}.

4. Financial mechanics: cuts, caps and redirected dollars

The proposal pairs structural consolidation with steep budgetary moves: roughly a 40–44% reduction in NIH discretionary funding is proposed in various drafts (dropping NIH from roughly $47–48 billion to the high‑$20 billion range), a cap on indirect (facilities and administrative) costs at 15%, and transfers of billions to the newly proposed Administration for a Healthy America—reports cite roughly $14 billion being redirected to that agency in some versions of the plan ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}. Brookings and other analyses project deep percentage cuts to grant programs and intramural research across even the three preserved institutes ^{[3] [11]}.

5. Practical and legal caveats, and the dissenting perspectives

Observers and NIH insiders warn that much of the architecture may be aspirational: many institutes were created by statute, and moving or eliminating them could require congressional action, and critics say consolidation risks creating large “silos within larger organizations” rather than genuine efficiency ^{[12] [13]}. Congressional committees and scientific societies have already resisted many elements of the proposal and highlighted the downstream risks to specialized fields such as genomics, global health, and environmental health ^{[10] [6] [14]}.

6. Bottom line on reallocation: what researchers would actually face

If enacted, the plan would reassign disease‑focused portfolios into broader, system‑oriented institutes, move environmental health and ARPA‑H out of NIH’s core, eliminate a handful of smaller centers, cap overhead funding, and reallocate substantial dollars to a new HHS agency—changes that together would reshape which programs get dedicated leadership, grant streams, and institutional advocacy inside the federal research apparatus ^{[8] [7] [5] [11]}. Reporting to date documents the proposed destinations for many portfolios, but the final map would depend on Congressional action and implementation details not fully laid out in the leaked drafts ^{[12] [10]}.