The NIH is rushing toward a radical change in how it funds research that will dramatically reduce the amount of medical research funded. Despite the catastrophic consequences this policy will have, most scientists don’t even know it’s happening.
At the behest of the White House and under Jay Bhattacharya’s leadership, the NIH is implementing a rigid new policy that will make it all but impossible to support new and innovative work: starting in the current award cycle, 50% of competing research project grant dollars must be committed up front. This "multi-year funding" (MYF) scheme effectively quadruples immediate costs to NIH for each new award. That means NIH can fund far fewer studies than normal; even projects with highly competitive scores solidly within prior year funding ranges will be rejected. Because 50% of new grant dollars must be committed to multi-year awards, the number of new research projects can fall even more than 50% — as some large NIH grants, like clinical trials, are not being considered for MYF but still count against the 50% directive.
The impacts of the MYF scheme are immediate, affecting all grants not yet awarded in fiscal year 2025 (FY25). Because of delays introduced by the Trump administration's cancellation of review meetings and changes in “agency priorities”, this will affect grants from as far back as the October 2024 Council round. The Trump administration plans to continue the MYF policy in FY26, when budget cuts could exacerbate its harm. Even with a flat FY26 budget, the MYF scheme will dramatically reduce the number of awards NIH can fund next year. If Congress does enact a budget cut, this could mean that nearly zero new grants are awarded in FY26.
Continuing the policy in future years will result in a staggering years-long dip in the number of grants NIH funds, even in the absence of budget cuts. Some modeling estimates suggest it would take about 6 years to return to 2024 award levels. By then, the research workforce will be so diminished it could not support that amount of science.
In June, the Coalition for Life Sciences warned about this multi-year funding scheme. In the past few days, several blog posts [DM, “Can We Still Govern”] outlined the impact. This post is an explainer with more details and analysis for scientists and advocates. For more information, contact us at info@scienceandfreedomalliance.org.
How NIH grants are normally funded
Traditionally, multi-year awards are funded in annual installments. Program officers evaluate progress and, if needed, work with grantees to address concerns before approving the next year of funding. This allows for accountability, adjustment, and efficient use of public money. It also spreads the NIH budget across many grants, allowing many labs to be funded and supporting the development of new or risky ideas.
MYF may sound appealing, but the proposed implementation will destroy U.S. science
While an MYF model could offer advantages for certain types of science in the long-run—less administration, more time for science—the sudden implementation and absolute inflexibility of the 50% requirement spell disaster and hint at political sabotage. Jay Bhattacharya defended this plan in a recent Senate hearing, saying it will allow for more flexibility “in the long run.” But that long run is meaningless if we destroy the bridge that gets us there.
Here's how that bridge will be destroyed:
1. Paylines are about to collapse, dramatically shrinking the number of grants awarded
Under an MYF scheme, funding paylines—which determine the percentile (or rank) score needed for a study to receive funding—will plummet regardless of field of study or national funding priorities. For example, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) projects its payline for FY25 will drop from the 12th percentile to somewhere between the 5th and 9th percentile. This drop in payline means 25 to 60 percent fewer funded studies. For the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the payline plunge is worse: dropping from the 10th percentile in FY24 to an estimated 4th percentile this year. Internal estimates from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute on Mental Health (NIMH) look similarly dismal, with the number of fundable grants projected to fall by a factor of 3 or 4 compared to last year.
Of further concern, NIH plans to only fund up to four years via MYF, meaning that a typical 5-year R01 grant may only receive four years of funding. The four-year limit is also why NIH program staff are not funding lengthy grants, like clinical trials, via MYF.
Program Officers in some Institutes report being asked to make agonizing choices between their best-scoring grants, knowing that the loss of funding could mean the collapse of an entire lab, a lost career, and stalled progress for the field.
2. MYF will devastate both established labs and the next generation of scientists.
The shift to MYF will dramatically downsize the scientific workforce. Early-career researchers, already navigating a hyper-competitive funding environment, face especially acute risks. Investigators launching new labs typically have just 2 to 4 years of start-up funds to secure their first R01. Many must renew that grant or obtain additional major awards in order to qualify for tenure. Losing even a single NIH funding cycle can mean the difference between a sustainable research career and leaving science altogether.
But the damage won't stop there. Established investigators, while often more resilient, run large, collaborative labs supported by multiple grants. A steep drop in new awards will force many to downsize or shut down operations entirely. This means the loss of critical research, jobs, and training opportunities for the next generation.
As labs close, trainees go with them. Doctoral students, postdocs, and undergraduates rely on these labs for funding, hands-on experience, and career development. With many graduate programs already shrinking, the additional blow from MYF-induced lab closures will further constrict the scientific workforce pipeline. We are at risk of losing, not just today's faculty, but an entire generation of scientific talent. We may never fully grasp the scale of the discoveries we forfeit or the people we drive out of U.S. science.
3. Funds intended for science may be snatched back to the Treasury
Under the traditional model, NIH program officers conduct annual reviews to monitor scientific progress, address challenges, and adjust funding in response to emerging priorities. MYF bypasses this process by front-loading funding, eliminating the opportunity for mid-course correction. If a project veers off track or a lab shuts down, the unused funds are no longer available to reallocate (they are returned to the U.S. Treasury). The same applies to any MYF grant terminated in the future. Given the Trump administration’s track record of terminating NIH grants without consulting scientific staff, and a recently leaked HHS legal strategy that highlights a plan to lower the legal threshold for terminating grants starting in October 2025, the implications of terminating MYF grants should be closely considered. Under the MYF scheme, each grant represents a much larger sum of unrecoverable research funding than under the traditional model. MYF creates a pipeline for politically motivated funding cuts with amplified consequences.
The MYF scheme only makes sense if the goal is to threaten the American research enterprise
The sudden move to MYF is yet another step in a broader political campaign to dismantle U.S. science. The Trump administration has made clear its hostility toward universities and scientific institutions. Given the drastic harms of abruptly transitioning to MYF, the move can only be explained by utter incompetence or intentional sabotage.
The order to abruptly transition to the MYF scheme came from the top of an administration that is actively engaged in tactics to usurp the Congressional power of the purse. They are enacting measures that prevent agencies from lawfully spending Congressionally appropriated funds, then ramming rescission packages through Congress.
MYF increases the risk that FY25 funds won’t be distributed in time and could be rescinded altogether. NIH staff are far behind schedule due to the Trump Administration’s blanket holds on funding and frequent policy changes. Right now, NIH is racing against the clock to get awards out before the end of the fiscal year, at which point any unspent funds could be rescinded. Although MYF could help get unspent dollars out the door, if applied flexibly to a small number of grants, the rigid 50% requirement necessitates considerable time to rethink funding plans, yet again. This takes time that should instead be focused on getting grants out the door.
Now, many within and outside NIH suspect the Trump Administration is attempting to justify a radical cut to NIH by reducing outyear financial commitments and demand. MYF lowers the apparent obligations in future years by front-loading funding now. It also dramatically contracts the research workforce, setting a precedent for fewer applications and lower demand on the NIH budget. Taken together, this gives the illusion that future NIH budgets can be smaller. In other words, MYF may be a Trojan horse. It frees up future obligations on paper and artificially reduces research applications so that the administration can claim previous funding levels were excessive and cut the NIH budget without triggering alarm.
If you are a PI, this hurts you. If you are an institution, this weakens you. If you are a trainee, this threatens your future.
Without immediate resistance from the research community, this change will go forward quietly and with catastrophic consequences.
Call to Action:
“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.”
— Alice Walker
Contact your Congressional representatives. Tell them to oppose this MYF mandate. Tell them to protect NIH funding. Make noise within your institution. Ask your research office what they’re doing to push back. Talk to your program officers. Demand transparency.
If we do not act now, we will lose more than just points on paylines. We will lose the next generation of scientists, the discoveries they would have made, the breakthrough cures they would have enabled, and the lives they would have saved. Unless we speak up, we will cede our scientific dominance on the world stage, reap profound economic losses in every state across our union, and allow Americans—and people across the globe—to suffer and die. It is not too late to stop this devastating change. Together, we have the power to stop it.
Launched 4 days ago
We are a group of scientists and allies; including NIH biomedical scientists affected by the Great NIH Collapse of 2025. We are charting a new course forward for strong and vibrant US science and academia, backed by democracy and supported by the public.
Absolutely tragic. The USA was a star in all the sciences. On a slippery slope downhill now.
It’s really really sad. Do they want us to become a 3rd world country?
Who is pushing this. Trump doesn't have the brain power to even understand this much less implement it