NIH Director Struggles To Defend His Own Plan To Slash $18 Billion In Medical Research

WASHINGTON ― National Institutes of Health director Jayanta Bhattacharya got a cool reception from Democratic and Republican senators on Tuesday as he defended his agency’s budget request for 2026, which would slash billions in cutting-edge biomedical research on cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes and other health conditions.

NIH is considered the crown jewel of American science and the global leader in biomedical research and innovation. Senators in both parties are proud of its success and of their own roles in boosting its funding over the years in support of medical breakthroughs.

So Bhattacharya had to know his budget request would land with a thud as he presented it to a Senate appropriations subcommittee. He kept trying to square two things that didn’t make sense: that Trump is committed to preserving America’s role as the leader in biomedical research, and that his proposed $18 billion in cuts to the agency next year ― or 40% of its entire budget ― won’t hamper that.

Senators didn’t buy it. At times, Bhattacharya didn’t seem to want to defend it, either.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who chairs the full Senate Appropriations Committee, called the administration’s proposed cuts to NIH “so disturbing.”

“It would undo years of congressional investment in NIH, and it would delay or stop effective treatments and cures from being developed for diseases,” Collins said. “We also risk falling behind China and other countries that are increasing their investment in biomedical research.”

In particular, she asked why the administration is calling for the cutting of funding by 40% for the National Institutes of Aging, which funds most Alzheimer’s research, when it’s been successfully developing breakthrough drugs and blood tests.

Bhattacharya, without defending his own proposed cuts, said “the intention” of the Trump administration is to lead the world in biomedical research, suggesting Congress could make a counteroffer and potentially propose more spending.

“The budget is a collaborative effort between the Congress and the administration,” he said.

Collins simply replied, “We look forward to working with you to remedy these problems and the deficiencies in the budget.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the appropriations panel, ripped the administration’s “catastrophic” cuts to NIH to date. She said Trump has so far forced out nearly 5,000 employees, prevented nearly $3 billion in grants from being awarded, and terminated nearly 2,500 grants totaling almost $5 billion for life-saving research.

“The Trump administration is already systematically dismantling the American biomedical research enterprise that is the envy of the world, throwing away billions in economic activity in every one of our states,” Murray fumed. “This budget proposal would effectively forfeit our leadership in research innovation and competitiveness to China.”

She tangled with Bhattacharya over one of dozens of clinical trials that have been halted due to frozen NIH funds: a 23-year research effort to develop an HIV vaccine. Scientists there are on “the cusp of a functional cure for HIV,” she said, and now 6,000 people in that trial have been cut off from treatment.

Bhattacharya jumped in to say he is “absolutely committed” to supporting research on HIV.

“But you did terminate the HIV research at Fred Hutch that, again, was on the cusp of a treatment for 6,000 patients nationwide,” Murray replied, referring to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

“You did do that,” she said, as they talked over each other.

“I’d have to get back to you on that,” said Bhattacharya.

“You did do that,” she repeated.

After more back and forth, the NIH director said again, “The budget request is a work of negotiation between Congress and the administration.”

Minutes later, he said it yet again, as Murray pressed for details on how many fewer clinical trials there would be next year because of the Trump administration’s proposed cuts.

“I’ll say this,” Bhattacharya declared. “The budget itself is a negotiation between Congress and the administration.”

He said it several other times, too. In fact, it became clear this was the NIH director’s go-to line for defending his own devastating budget request. It simultaneously allowed him to stand by his bosses ― Trump, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ― while not exactly arguing in support of its specific cuts.

“President Trump has committed that the U.S. be the leading nation in biomedicine in the 21st century,” he said at one point. “I entirely support that goal.”

“Well, I do too, but it’s hard to understand how we’re going to get there when the budget slashes funding,” replied Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “Particularly in critical areas of research where our most critical competitor, the Chinese, are increasing funding in those areas and we’re slashing the budgets.”

Bhattacharya didn’t respond.

It’s possible he may not have agreed with some of his own budget’s cuts. Bhattacharya certainly had a hand in crafting his agency’s budget, but so did other officials at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services. Before becoming NIH director in April, Bhattacharya was a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University. He knows how vital and highly esteemed NIH is, worldwide.

Why not put it on Congress to save it?

“You say this is a collaborative effort, and you’re absolutely right, and I encourage Congress to exert its authorities,” said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas). “If Congress were to provide additional dollars above and beyond the president’s budget request, how would we as a committee and how would you as NIH recommend for us to prioritize that spending?”

Bhattacharya said he’s focused on the “real health needs” of Americans, like diabetes and cancer, and on the “need to think big” for advancing science.

“Again, the budget, it’s a collaborative effort,” he said. “But I think it’s going to be important that we address the real problems in science and the real needs of the American people with whatever budget comes out. That’s my job.”

Moran redirected Bhattacharya back to the need for more funding at NIH.

“I assume that means we need more resources,” said the Republican senator. “And that you would put them to good use. Is that accurate?”

“That’s my job,” replied the NIH director.