Impact of NIH Funding Cuts on Medical Education in the U.S.

NIH Funding Trends and Recent Cuts

For decades, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been the major source of funding of medical research and education in the U.S. Its budget steadily climbed over the past ten years, hitting $47.3 billion in 2023. But in 2024, funding dropped by 0.8%—the first decline in over a decade. Adjusted for inflation, NIH funding had only just recovered to early-2000s levels, making this cut feel even more significant.

In early 2025, a major funding crisis hit medical research regarding NIH funding. The new administration has a proposed policy aimed to cap indirect costs—funds that help universities maintain research facilities as well as pay for other non-research related activities. The proposed cap of 15% of research grants is much less than the approximately 50% level that most schools currently receive. If it goes through, this major cut could result in a $4.3 billion annual decrease in funding. Because medical schools receive about half of all NIH funding, they would face the brunt of this change. As of the writing of this blog, a federal judge temporarily blocked the cap. The uncertainty about NIH funding and a freeze on new grant awards has sent shockwaves through academic medicine.

In this blog, we will explore the ripple effects of these cuts, including their impact on medical education, research opportunities, and faculty hiring, as well as the responses from institutions and policymakers.

Effects on Medical Education and Research Training

MD and MD-PhD Programs

NIH funding is a major source of funding for medical schools, supporting research programs that train future doctors and physician-scientists. With these recent funding cuts, MD-PhD programs (Medical Scientist Training Programs, or MSTPs)—which often depend on NIH grants—have been among the first to feel the impact.

NYU Grossman School of Medicine, which, according to reports from online forums, has rescinded MD-PhD admissions offers for the 2025 incoming class, effectively pausing its MSTP. While NYU has not released an official statement, discussions suggest that the program is undergoing a revision, potentially shortening the PhD portion. This has raised concerns about the quality of training and the future stability of MD-PhD programs at the institution.

Even MD students who aren’t pursuing a PhD may feel the effects, as NIH-funded research fellowships and summer programs may start disappearing. Many schools are prioritizing funding for current students, meaning fewer research opportunities for future students.

Graduate Research and Training Opportunities

The funding cuts have also led to reductions in PhD admissions at universities with strong biomedical research programs such as at University of Pittsburgh and University of Pennsylvania. Duke University faculty described a “chilling effect“ where accepted students are unsure if they’ll have research funding.

Faculty Hiring and Retention

NIH funding doesn’t just support students—it also helps universities hire and retain research faculty. Recent reports indicate that the proposed NIH funding cuts are prompting universities to implement measures such as hiring freezes and budget reductions to mitigate potential financial challenges. For instance, Stanford University has enacted a staff hiring freeze in response to anticipated federal cuts to research funding and increased taxes.

While specific reports of universities shutting down research labs and laying off staff are not yet widespread, the financial strain caused by these funding cuts raises concerns about such outcomes in the future. Faculty members are facing challenges in planning their research projects amidst the uncertainty, which could lead some to consider leaving academia, thereby reducing mentorship opportunities for students.

Broader Consequences for Medical Research and Healthcare

Experts warn that cutting NIH support for research training today will have long-term consequences for the healthcare workforce. If fewer physician-scientists and biomedical researchers are trained now, the pace of medical innovation could slow, delaying advances in disease treatment.  AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) warned that these cuts would “hurt every American” by delaying new treatments and discoveries. Clinical trials could also be affected, potentially limiting patient access to new therapies.

Policy Responses and Advocacy Efforts

The NIH cuts have sparked strong opposition from universities, lawmakers, and advocacy groups. Students, researchers, and patients have also pushed back.

• Protesters have rallied in Washington, D.C., holding signs that read “Science Saves Lives” and “No More Cuts – Fund the NIH”.
• Scientists and students have taken to social media to share stories about how these cuts threaten their careers.
• Faculty have created online resources tracking program cuts nationwide.

These advocacy efforts are making an impact. The Office of Management and Budget reversed a previous memo that froze federal grant spending, and NIH has resumed some grant review meetings. Research advocates are now calling on Congress to secure stable funding and prevent sudden policy changes that disrupt the medical research pipeline.

The recent NIH funding cuts have already created challenges for medical education, research training, and faculty recruitment. If these trends continue, the long-term impact could be severe—affecting not just students and researchers, but the future of healthcare itself. Advocacy and policy responses will play a key role in determining what happens next.

• 22 state attorneys general and top research universities filed lawsuits, arguing the policy is “unlawful” and would devastate medical research.
• A federal judge temporarily blocked the funding cap, delaying immediate damage while the case proceeds.
• Senator Patty Murray criticized the cuts, calling them a violation of bipartisan agreements.
• The AAMC and other research organizations issued statements condemning the policy, warning of major disruptions.