Apr
6
Trump, Cancer Research, and the NIH
“The world’s richest man took $190 million away from kids with cancer.” — MSNBC host Chris Hayes on X (referring to Elon Musk)
Instead of ranting about Trump’s tariffs like everyone else this week, I decided to address something else…
Lately, I have become aware of certain claims made by some Leftists and other anti-Trumpers, who assert that Donald Trump has worked with DOGE and the GOP to eliminate federal funding for cancer research. Apparently, the Evil Orange Man (with full blessing of heartless “MAGA Republicans”) doesn’t care if people die painful deaths from horrible diseases, as long as he can say he saved the American taxpayers some money — or something like that. Trump has his faults, but I was rather skeptical of the claims and did a little digging.
Back in Dec. 2024, you will remember that Congress was trying to come to some agreement in order to avoid government shutdown. (In other words, the same old same old.) The “Further Continuing Appropriations and Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025” bill was put forth that included ~$190 million to continue cancer research via Gabriella Miller Kids First Research for several more years. But, the bill was one of those bloated messes, weighing in at 1547 pages. So, despite bipartisan Congressional support, Trump opposed the bill — some say at Elon Musk’s recommendation — on Dec. 18. (Keep in mind, Trump wasn’t actually in Office, yet.) House Speaker Johnson presented a new version of the bill — the “American Relief Act 2025” — to Congress the next day, which had removed several “spending provisions” — including any mention of cancer research — and clocked in at a mere 116 pages.
Thus we have the quote at the top of this article, as well as similar statements echoed by influencers and the hoi polloi.
Why were Musk and Trump against the original appropriations bill? It certainly wasn’t because they saw no value in cancer research or didn’t care if children died because newer, better cancer treatments were never developed. They just thought that such funding has no business being included in such a bill. (And I concur.) As Musk put it,
“Why was cancer funding lumped in with a bill that included a raise for Congress and funding for a stadium? Why is separate bills for separate issues such a radical idea?”
What also gets lost in the mudslinging and self-righteous uproar is the fact that…
“On Dec. 21, 2024, after much tumult, [President] Biden signed the heavily trimmed down version of the spending bill, thus averting a government shutdown. However, the dropped funding for cancer research was reintroduced as a separate bill and passed by the Senate by unanimous vote. The Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act was renewed, extending $12.6 million in annual cancer research funding through 2031.”
This annual rate is based on the original funding — $126 million over 10 years — when Obama first signed the act into law in 2014. Unfortunately, the rumor that Trump et al. “stopped child cancer research” still persists.
The more recent but related topic is Trump’s supposed cut of all biomedical research funding, cancer or otherwise.
One of the first things the Trump administration did following inauguration was to have the HHS order, as explained via email from a White House spokesperson, “a pause on mass communications and public appearances that are not directly related to emergencies or critical to preserving health. This is a short pause to allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization. There are exceptions for announcements that HHS divisions believe are mission critical, but they will be made on a case by case basis.”
By extension, this effectively resulted in cancellations/postponements of meetings (along with associated travel) and reports from health agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
“With an annual budget of $47 billion, the NIH is the world’s largest funder of research in the medical and behavioral sciences. The cancellation or delay of study-section meetings, which dole out grant money to promising studies in those areas, worried scientists that crucial research may be delayed or abandoned for lack of funding.”
Careers and lives were impacted. As before, some unsubstantiated claims were made — whether due to ignorance or malice — that Trump had simply cut all cancer research, which was simply not the case. The freeze was initially scheduled to be lifted on Feb. 1, 2025, but it was delayed until RFK Jr. was confirmed as HHS Secretary on Feb. 26, and then it was only partially lifted at the time. According to NPR, the five-week freeze had impacted 16,000 grants applications (i.e., ~$1.5 billion in NIH funding).
I can understand the fears and frustrations these people must have had, not knowing the future of their critical research or of clinical trials they were anxious to begin, etc. Especially if they were only reading/hearing inaccurate information. But, this sort of pause while transitioning between administrations — whether political or corporate — is not unusual. Inconvenient, yes. Trumpian evil, no.
A main concern held by the Trump administration was that of how much potential grant money was going to “indirect costs”, aka “overhead”. According to a congressional research paper, “indirect costs represent expenses that are not specific to a research project and that maintain the infrastructure and administrative support for federally funded research.” So, a lot of it is needed, but sometimes it isn’t. (I may do a follow-up post on this.) Prior to recent events, the average was an additional 27-28% of the grant amount being allocated for indirect costs. But, DOGE research discovered that the “indirect costs” were in many cases being abused. As per Musk,
“Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for ‘overhead’? What a ripoff!”
Worse than that, Fox News Digital spoke with doctors who said negotiated rates can be as high as 70-90%!
On Feb. 7, 2025, the NIH issued new guidance on indirect costs for grants, capping it at 15% of the amount of the grants. Effective Feb. 10, 2025, “this cost cap would apply to all new grants, and also to all existing grants…. A social media post by the NIH estimated that this new guidance would save the agency $4 billion a year.”
Some doctors and researchers are in favor of the reforms. For example, Dr. Erika Schwartz of Evolved Science:
“While infrastructure support is necessary, there’s room for more efficient cost management. A reformed funding model could redirect more resources to direct research activities while maintaining essential support services. This could potentially increase the number of funded research projects and accelerate medical breakthroughs, ultimately benefiting patients more directly.”
But, many others in the medical research industry are opposed, and some are even taking it to the courts:
“In response, 22 states sued the federal government. On March 5, 2025, Federal Judge Angel Kelley, in Massachusetts, granted their motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction on this indirect-cost cap.”
Meanwhile, the NIH began to implement changes in early March, reportedly instructing its staff to award grants only to applications that aligned with the administration’s priorities, according to a report by Nature. “NIH will no longer prioritize research and research training programs that focus on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI).” It also announced it would centralize all grant reviews to the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) ‘to improve efficiency and strengthen integrity.’ Prior to this, about 22% of grant applications went through NIH Institutes and Centers (IC). For a number of reasons, some scientists are worried that the new system will slow grants and, therefore, research projects.
I understand some of the concerns expressed by those involved in research (cancer and otherwise), and I hope the administration is at least a little bit flexible and willing to seriously consider the concerns held by serious doctors and scientists (as opposed to, say, universities that just want a slush fund).
Incidentally, while it had been claimed that the administration’s “pause” had resulted in clinical trials being halted at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung replied that was false. According to the Center, “all active and enrolling clinical trials at MD Anderson remain ongoing.”
Bottom line here is that, contrary to complaints both legit and otherwise, Trump has not eliminated all federally-funded cancer research. In regards to the more outlandish accusations, some people need to keep their Trump Derangement Syndrome in check and, instead of always assuming the worst, maybe perform a little due diligence in regards to fact-checking (outside of the usual MSM reporters and activists).
As for this particular topic, while Snopes is sometimes guilty of biased reporting, I found their summaries and timelines quite helpful. Check out “Critics Say Musk’s Influence on Trump Led GOP to Cut Children’s Cancer Research. Here’s What We Know” and “Trump didn’t ‘cancel cancer research’ — but his directives paused NIH meetings to dole out funds”, which I quoted from above. Also, this brief BBC article and this one from Fox News.
