The Morning: Trump vs. medical research

February 25, 2025

Good morning. Today, my colleague Benjamin Mueller explains how government cuts are slowing medical research. We’re also covering Emmanuel Macron, German elections and a sonnet. —David Leonhardt

A researcher with a pipette and blue gloves in a lab space, seen through an opening between shelves.

At the National Institutes of Health. Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Paying for science

The Trump administration stormed into office, loudly firing workers and closing diversity programs. But behind the scenes, it has also brought biomedical research to the brink of crisis by holding up much of the $47 billion the United States spends on the field every year.

The world’s leading medical labs can be found in the United States, and they rely on grants from the National Institutes of Health. The agency has stopped vetting future studies on cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and other ailments. Trump aides have said they just need time to review spending their predecessors had promised, but it’s unclear what they’re looking for at the N.I.H. or when scholars can expect to start receiving money again.

In today’s newsletter, I’ll walk you through what happened — and why it matters.

A complex machine

Late last month, when the Trump administration froze government grants, a federal judge said it couldn’t just hold back money Congress had agreed to spend. But spending money at the N.I.H., which awards more than 60,000 grants per year, isn’t so simple.

That’s because new grants endure a tortured bureaucratic process. The agency has to notify the public of grant review meetings in The Federal Register, a government publication. Then scientists and N.I.H. officials meet to discuss the proposals. The problem is that the Trump administration banned those announcements “indefinitely.” So new research projects can’t get approved.

In effect, scientists say, the Trump administration is circumventing the court order. Health officials didn’t block research outright, but by shutting down the process, they’re still not spending much of the money Congress allocated to various research goals.

The administration has also proposed other big changes, saying that universities should bear more of the “indirect costs” of research: maintaining lab space, paying support staff. Trump aides say the changes would trim administrative bloat and free up more government money for research.

Labs hit pause

Scientists are panicked, and hundreds of studies are at a standstill, including ones on pancreatic cancer, brain injuries and child health. Last week alone, the N.I.H. canceled 42 of 47 scheduled meetings to assess new grants. Some examples of stalled projects:

For years, Steffanie Strathdee at the University of California San Diego has followed drug users to research overdoses, which kill some 100,000 people in the United States each year. Her investigation of H.I.V. infections in that group was ready to begin — but came to an abrupt halt when the N.I.H. canceled a review panel meeting this month. “Everything is absolutely frozen,” she told me. “It’ll just sit there, hanging in limbo.”
Anthony Richardson at the University of Pittsburgh was expecting a review panel to weigh a grant application of his on staph infections in people with diabetes, a disease that afflicts more than one-tenth of Americans. It never happened. “I am not 100 percent sure what their motives are,” he said.

In response to all the uncertainty, universities are retrenching. The University of Pittsburgh froze Ph.D. admissions. Columbia University’s medical school paused hiring and spending. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology froze the hiring of nonfaculty employees.

Some lab leaders told me they were making contingency plans to fire scientists. Graduate students are searching for new sources of funding.

What next?

It’s hard to say how long the holdup will last. The Trump administration hasn’t submitted a single new grant review meeting to The Federal Register since a day after it took office. And even if it started adding new ones, the agency traditionally gives several weeks’ notice.

At risk are not only the tens of thousands of grants the N.I.H. awards each year, but also American dominance of biomedical research. Every dollar the agency spends on research generates more than two dollars in economic activity, the N.I.H. has said. Scores of patents follow. By some measures, the United States produces more influential health-sciences research than the next 10 leading countries combined.

The science unfolds across the country, including in red states, where lawmakers have complained about proposed changes to indirect costs.

Those findings often fuel pharmaceutical advancements, laying a foundation for drugs and vaccines long before private funders see such work as worth investing in.

Even Ozempic traces its roots back in part to work at the N.I.H on animal venom. Scientists found that the toxin from Gila monster lizards seemed to have particular physiological effects, helping lead eventually to one of the world’s most profitable and promising drugs.

New advances like those, scientists say, are in danger.

THE LATEST NEWS

Government Overhaul

Elon Musk in a black MAGA hat, a black blazer and sunglasses.

Elon Musk Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press

A rift emerged in the White House over Elon Musk’s demand that federal workers justify their jobs: Personnel officials told workers that the order was voluntary, while President Trump called it “genius” and said anyone who did not comply would be punished.
The F.D.A. rehired dozens of specialized employees it fired last week.
At a hearing over Musk’s DOGE effort, a federal judge in Washington expressed skepticism that the operation was constitutional.
A lewd fake video depicting Trump and Musk played on monitors in the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The video appeared to have been generated by artificial intelligence.

MORNING READS

A black-and-white photo of a woman in a floral dress and a head wrap looking to her left in a clothing store while other people shop.

Alberta Wright owned a vintage clothing store and a restaurant named Jezebel. Don Hogan Charles/The New York Times

Trailblazers: In the late 20th century, a group of Black women created restaurants that changed New York dining.

A closer read: Our critic guides you through a wild and unruly sonnet by Gwendolyn Brooks.

Ask Vanessa: “Should men wear white jeans?”

Pretenders: Psychologists are warning that chatbots posing as therapists could encourage users to commit harmful acts.

Health: Experts explain what they do, and don’t, recommend to treat cold sores.

Living Small: A couple left Brooklyn to downsize upstate.

Most clicked yesterday: A photo of migrants deported from the U.S., seen through the windows of a hotel in Panama. One woman scrawled “Help” in lipstick, another held up a napkin with a plea for help.

Lives Lived: Clint Hill was the Secret Service agent who leaped onto President John F. Kennedy’s limousine as it came under fire in Dallas and kept a scrambling Jacqueline Kennedy from falling. He died at 93.

SPORTS

N.F.L.: The Green Bay Packers submitted a proposal to the NFL’s competition committee to ban the “tush push,” a tactic of the Super Bowl-winning Eagles.

Scouting Combine: Young players’ arms are measured and compared by the fraction of an inch. See what scouts look for.

N.B.A.: The Bulls beat the 76ers, 142-110. Philadelphia has lost eight straight games.

ARTS AND IDEAS

A black-and-white close-up on a person in a tuxedo’s chest and face, with an old fashioned microphone positioned in front of it.

Photo Illustration by The New York Times; H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock, via Getty Images

One hundred years ago today, the musician Art Gillham entered a studio in New York to test a soon-to-be-transformative tool: the microphone. The technology reshaped how artists perform and how we listen. Read about how the microphone changed music.