Marc Ernstoff, a physician who has pioneered immunotherapy research and treatments for cancer patients, said his work as a federal scientist proved untenable under the Trump administration.<\/p>\n
Philip Stewart, a Rocky Mountain Laboratories researcher focused on tick-borne diseases, said he retired two years earlier than planned because of hurdles that made it too challenging to do his job well.<\/p>\n
Alexa Romberg, an addiction prevention scientist focused on tobacco, said she \u201clost a great deal\u201d of the research she oversaw when federal grants vanished.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf one is thinking about the \u2018Make America Healthy Again\u2019 agenda and the prevention of chronic disease,\u201d Romberg said, \u201ctobacco use is the No. 1 contributor to early morbidity and mortality that we can prevent.\u201d<\/p>\n
The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, with a mission statement<\/a> to \u201cenhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness.\u201d<\/p>\n Over decades, the value of the NIH may be the one thing everyone in Washington has agreed on. Lawmakers have routinely boosted its funding.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m so pleased to be associated with NIH,\u201d former Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican and one of the NIH\u2019s biggest champions in Congress, said in 2022<\/a> shortly before he retired.<\/p>\n But in President Donald Trump\u2019s second term, the NIH has seen an exodus of scientists like Ernstoff, Stewart, and Romberg. Federal data shows the NIH lost about 4,400 people \u2014 more than 20% of its workforce. Scientists say the departures harm the U.S.\u2019 ability to respond to disease outbreaks, develop treatments for chronic illnesses, and confront the nation\u2019s most pressing public health problems.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople are going to get hurt,\u201d said Sylvia Chou, a scientist who worked at the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland, for over 15 years before she left in January. \u201cThere\u2019s going to be a lot more health challenges and even deaths, because we need science in order to help people get healthy.\u201d<\/p>\n Why They\u2019re Leaving<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n KFF Health News interviewed a half dozen scientists who said they quit their jobs years before they\u2019d planned to because of the tumult of 2025.<\/p>\n Only a few years ago, the NIH workforce was steadily growing, from roughly 17,700 employees in fiscal year 2019 to around 21,100 in fiscal 2024, federal data shows. Under Trump, those gains have been slashed.<\/p>\n The Trump administration enacted a campaign to purge government workers perceived as disloyal to the president. People were fired or encouraged to leave. Officials instituted a months-long freeze on hiring.<\/p>\n The NIH workforce has plummeted to about 17,100 people \u2014 its lowest level in at least two decades. Most who left weren\u2019t fired. Roughly 4 in 5 either retired, quit, had appointments that expired, or transferred to a different job, according to federal data.<\/p>\n Scientists watched with dread as their colleagues were forced to terminate research funds for topics the Trump administration deemed off-limits. Across NIH labs, routine work stalled. They said they faced major delays in accessing equipment and supplies. Travel authorizations were slowed or denied.<\/p>\n Agency staff were instructed not to communicate with anyone outside the agency. When they could talk again, they were subject to greater constraints on what they could present to the public.<\/p>\n And under the administration\u2019s agenda to eliminate \u201cdiversity, equity, and inclusion,\u201d references to minorities or health equity were purged from NIH-funded research. Initiatives to protect Americans\u2019 health were gutted. Among them: support for early-career scientists, ways to prevent harm from HIV or substance use, and efforts to study how different populations\u2019 immune systems respond to disease.<\/p>\n In a January op-ed<\/a>, Chou and Romberg were among a group of NIH scientists who said they resigned in protest of an administration \u201cthat treats science not as a process for building knowledge, but as a means to advance its political agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n A \u2018Fundamental Destruction\u2019<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement that the agency had shifted to focus on evidence-based research over \u201cideological agendas.\u201d She said the NIH is still recruiting \u201cthe best and brightest\u201d and advancing high-quality science to \u201cdeliver breakthroughs for the American people.\u201d The federal health department oversees NIH.<\/p>\n \u201cA major reset was overdue. HHS has taken action to streamline operations, reduce redundancies, and return to pre-pandemic employment levels,\u201d Hilliard said.<\/p>\n Many scientists, however, question whether the NIH can still fulfill its public mission.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s been a fundamental destruction,\u201d said Daniel Dulebohn, a researcher who spent nearly two decades at Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana. It\u2019s going to \u201ctake a very, very long time to rebuild.\u201d<\/p>\n Dulebohn left the NIH\u2019s infectious disease and allergy institute in September.<\/p>\n He analyzed how molecules and proteins interact in diseases, such as Lyme disease, HIV, and Alzheimer\u2019s \u2014 information that\u2019s key for new treatments. Dulebohn was a resource for scientists when they hit walls trying to understand, for example, if molecules could prevent infection or react to a treatment.<\/p>\n Now he and his wife are living off savings in Mexico with their three young kids. Dulebohn\u2019s thinking about what\u2019s next. One option: real estate.<\/p>\n The expert in biochemical analysis operated equipment few others know how to use. His exit further depletes resources in the specialty.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s clear when someone comes out with a drug and now you\u2019ve just cured a disease. But you never know which ones could have been cured,\u201d Dulebohn said. \u201cWe don\u2019t know what we\u2019ve lost.\u201d<\/p>\n Laura Stark, a Vanderbilt University associate professor who specializes in the history of medicine and science, said wiping out NIH staff will propel a shift toward private-industry research, with its profit motives, \u201cas opposed to actually helping American health.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe just don\u2019t have people who are now able to pursue research for the public good,\u201d Stark said.<\/p>\n From Support to Scrutiny<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n Stark said the seeds of the present-day NIH were planted during World War II when the U.S. government spearheaded an effort to mass-produce the antibiotic penicillin to save soldiers from infections.<\/p>\n The agency has played a central role in lifesaving discoveries and treatments \u2014 including for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis.<\/p>\n With bipartisan backing from Congress, the NIH budget has grown significantly over time, sitting at $48.7 billion for fiscal 2026. The NIH allocates roughly 11% of its budget for agency scientists. About 80% is awarded to universities and other institutions.<\/p>\n The money may be there, but the people who get it out the door are not, scientists said.<\/p>\n Jennifer Troyer left the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, on Dec. 31, after working in various positions at the NIH for about 25 years. The division she led reviews research and oversees grants to organizations studying the human genome \u2014 or a person\u2019s complete set of genes \u2014 and how it can be used to benefit health.<\/p>\n Last year, she said, her division lost about two-thirds of its staff. \u201cThere really are not enough people there right now to actually get the work done,\u201d Troyer said. \u201cIt\u2019s extreme harm.\u201d<\/p>\n She decided to quit the day Trump issued an executive order<\/a> in August that prohibited the use of grants to \u201cfund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate\u201d what it described as \u201canti-American values.\u201d It also allowed political appointees to review all funding decisions.<\/p>\n \u201cI wasn\u2019t going to operate a division under those orders,\u201d Troyer said. She hasn\u2019t figured out her next career steps.<\/p>\n \u2018Enough Is Enough\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n Research aligned with the administration\u2019s stated priorities has suffered.<\/p>\n HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease \u2014 a tick-borne infection that can cause debilitating lifelong symptoms \u2014 a priority<\/a>. In December, Kennedy said the government had long dismissed patients burdened with a disease that nearly 500,000 people<\/a> in the U.S. are diagnosed with annually.<\/p>\n That same month, Stewart, who had dedicated his career to ticks and Lyme disease as a federal scientist, retired early. He\u2019d worked for the government for 27 years. Stewart said workforce cuts and travel delays stalled his efforts to confirm how far Lyme-carrying ticks had spread \u2014 information that could help doctors recognize symptoms sooner.<\/p>\n Stewart was a lead scientist on research published last year identifying a black-legged tick<\/a>, or deer tick, in Montana. It was the first time the tick best known for transmitting Lyme disease had been confirmed in the state. He wanted to determine if the discovery was a fluke or an indicator that the species was gaining ground.<\/p>\n \u201cThe advice we\u2019ve been getting is, \u2018Put your head down below the trench line. Don\u2019t look. Don\u2019t peek over and risk getting shot,\u2019\u201d Stewart said. \u201cAt what point do you finally say, \u2018Enough is enough\u2019 and \u2018We\u2019re not being effective anymore\u2019?\u201d<\/p>\n Scientists said those early in their careers are looking abroad for jobs and training. People who want to stay in the U.S. are running into problems getting hired because of cuts to research grants and uncertainty about funding.<\/p>\n Collectively, people studying diseases warn the U.S. could lose its long-held position as the global leader in biomedical research, with devastating impact.<\/p>\n Stanley Perlman, a University of Iowa virologist who studies pediatric infectious diseases, said that title earned the nation more than prestige; it drew top scientists from the world over to the U.S. to study diseases that particularly affect people here.<\/p>\n There\u2019s no guarantee halted research will be picked up elsewhere, whether by private industry or other countries. If others are doing that work, Americans could face delays in seeing benefits, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you don\u2019t have access to how the work was done,\u201d Perlman said, \u201cit\u2019s harder to reproduce and adapt it for your country.\u201d<\/p>\n KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.<\/em><\/p>\n\n KFF Health News<\/a> is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF\u2014an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF<\/a>.<\/p>\nUSE OUR CONTENT<\/h3>\n