How did the Trump administration's budget proposals affect NCI grant awards and paylines?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Trump administration’s budget and policy changes sharply reduced the number of new NIH and NCI awards in 2025 by shifting many grants to “upfront” multi‑year funding and imposing spending pauses and tighter terms; NCI signaled it would fund roughly the top 4% of R01‑type applications in FY2025 versus about the top 10% the year before [1] [2]. Multiple news analyses calculate billions less in new awards and substantial year‑over‑year drops in award counts tied to these policy shifts (STAT’s $2.3 billion figure; broader declines and award drops reported by STAT and Science) [3] [4] [5].
1. “What changed: a front‑loading of multi‑year grants”
The core technical change was an NIH requirement—driven by administration budget guidance and incorporated into agency policy—that at least half of remaining competing research project grant funds in FY2025 be used to upfront‑fund the full project period for new awards, meaning multi‑year grants must be paid from a single fiscal year rather than spread across future budgets (NCI’s published funding strategy and NIH descriptions) [1] [5]. Analysts and outlets explain that this “front‑loading” forces institutes to fund far fewer discrete awards in any given year because one award now consumes funds that formerly were budgeted across several years [5] [6].
2. “Immediate impact at NCI: payline plunged to about 4%”
NCI officials told stakeholders that for FY2025 they would not set a conventional R01 payline for outstanding applications and instead expected to fund roughly only those scoring in the top 4%—a sharp drop from the roughly top 10% funded in FY2024—explicitly tied to budget reductions and the new upfront‑funding requirement (NCI guidance and medical society summaries) [1] [2]. Reporting and commentary cite the NCI figure as emblematic of the broader narrowing of awards under the new policy [7] [2].
3. “Counting the cost: fewer awards and billions less in new grants”
Independent analyses and news organizations document large declines in new awards and dollars obligated. STAT reported that NIH scaled back new grant awards by at least $2.3 billion since the start of 2025, and later STAT and other outlets showed a drop in award counts compared with prior years [3] [4]. Science/AAAS coverage ties those declines to both the multiyear funding shift and to delays or pauses in spending that left billions unspent and at risk of rescission [5].
4. “Administration tools: budget proposal, OMB pauses, and tighter award terms”
The policy shift was anchored in the administration’s FY2026 budget proposal and in executive and OMB directions that instructed agencies to change funding practices; OMB at one point ordered a pause on issuing research grants and contracts, and NIH later updated terms and conditions that analysts say give the agency more latitude to alter or terminate awards depending on appropriations (White House and reporting; Forbes on terms changes) [8] [9] [10]. Courts and critics pushed back: a federal judge temporarily blocked large proposed cuts to research funding in March 2025, showing legal friction over how far the administration could go [11].
5. “Who wins, who loses: distributional effects and warnings of talent loss”
Reporting and scientific leaders warn the combined effects disproportionately hit early‑career investigators and training programs: STAT’s analyses and other coverage find early‑career awards at low points and predict “substantial loss of principal investigators and staff” if paylines remain so restrictive [4] [5]. Some institutional leaders urge dialogue with the administration about priorities even as others frame the policy as aligning research to nearer‑term, “Gold Standard Science” deliverables referenced in White House guidance [8] [12].
6. “Disagreement and political context: multiple perspectives”
Supporters framed upfront funding and tighter oversight as fiscal discipline and a way to prioritize projects with immediate impact; the White House framed reforms as improving grant oversight and emphasizing certain standards [8]. Critics—academic institutions, scientific societies, independent reporters—argue the measures are effectively cuts that shrink the research enterprise, citing raw drops in awards and dollars and forecasting longer recovery periods [3] [5] [4]. A federal judge’s intervention and letters from senators show this remains contested in courts and Congress [11] [5].
7. “Limits of available reporting and what reporters still don’t say”
Available sources document policy mechanics, NCI’s announced FY2025 approach and substantial declines in awards and dollars, but they do not provide a complete, audited nationwide count of how many individual investigators lost awards specifically because of the upfront policy versus other factors; detailed institute‑by‑institute granular accounting beyond the cited figures is not found in current reporting [1] [3] [4]. Long‑term effects depend on Congressional action on the budget and any legal outcomes; present coverage records clear near‑term contraction but leaves multi‑year projections contingent on policy reversals or appropriations.
Bottom line: the administration’s budget proposals and related NIH directives materially reduced the number and share of new NIH/NCI awards in 2025—NCI moved to fund roughly the top 4% of certain grants, and news analyses quantify billions in reduced new grant obligations—while the policy remains politically and legally contested [1] [2] [3] [5].