Understanding NIH Funding and the Impact of Grant Losses: Insights from a Michigan Research Professor

In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has terminated over US$2 billion in federal grants, according to a public database compiled by the scientific community, and is proposing additional cuts that could nearly halve the $47 billion budget of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). These significant reductions are reverberating through top-tier research institutions like the University of Michigan.

In fiscal year 2024, the university’s research expenditures totaled around $2 billion, with approximately $1.2 billion derived from federal grants, and NIH providing $762 million of that sum. Brady West, a seasoned research professor at the university, explains how these cuts threaten ongoing research and future scientific progress.

The University of Michigan's research infrastructure includes 'soft money' institutes—research centers entirely funded by grants. Most of these institutes rely on grants to support salaries for faculty, staff, and graduate students, who are responsible for raising their own funding. In contrast, teaching faculty salaries are typically covered by university funds from tuition and other sources.

Applying for federal grants, particularly from NIH, is a competitive and meticulous process that often takes about a year for proposal development. Researchers conduct extensive background research, preliminary studies, and work closely with research administrators to craft budgets and formatting. These proposals undergo rigorous peer review, where expert panels evaluate their scientific merit, with only the highest-scoring projects receiving funding. Usually, researchers go through multiple submission cycles before securing support.

Brady West recalls learning about the rescinding of NIH and other federal grants in mid-February 2025, during the final stages of a study funded by a $160,000 NIH grant. Over subsequent weeks, reports emerged of grants across various domains—including climate change, vaccination, gender identity, and diversity—being terminated without notice.

The immediate effect of such terminations is job insecurity for researchers and their teams. For example, one of West’s Ph.D. students received an abrupt notification that his grant support had been canceled, leaving his funding source gone overnight. To address urgent needs, the university has launched a new funding program to support those affected, but this is only a temporary measure.

Researchers are now adapting to a funding landscape that favors certain keywords and topics aligned with current political priorities. This situation prompts difficult career decisions—whether to stay, shift fields, or move to private industry. The potential loss of top-tier faculty and research talent raises concerns about the future of U.S. scientific leadership.

Brady West emphasizes that understanding the current political climate and funding priorities is essential for navigating this new reality. Despite these challenges, the university remains committed to pursuing high-quality science, albeit with necessary strategic adjustments.

For researchers at the University of Michigan and beyond, the ongoing funding cuts mark a pivotal moment, requiring resilience and innovation to sustain scientific progress amid uncertainty.