Johns Hopkins’ funding squeeze isn’t over — and it’s threatening lifesaving research

Researchers and leaders at the Johns Hopkins University were aghast when, last year, federal agencies canceled hundreds of millions of dollars fueling life-saving biomedical research. This year is shaping up to be worse.

Shifting national priorities, a muddled grant application process and less available grant funding have the potential to reshape the identity of Hopkins, the nation’s first research university.

But what’s become clear and more worrisome for researchers are the long-term consequences when new scientific discoveries are never made: fewer cures and therapies, and less protection from pandemics. Less funding also means a far smaller workforce able to man the labs.

“It’s really sunk in that this current administration is committed to mounting an assault on university research,” said Drew Pardoll, director of the Bloomberg-Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Hopkins. “And when there’s this much uncertainty and unpredictability, it’s very difficult to maintain an efficient research program.”

Pardoll spends his days teaching students while trying to cure cancer. He was involved in developing one of the most commonly used cancer therapies, which he says likely wouldn’t have happened without federal funding.

His new world, which he calls “dystopian,” began last February when the Trump administration slashed funding for the National Institutes of Health, the largest funder of biomedical research in the U.S.

The courts and Congress restored some funding, but university officials reported researchers received 43% less federal funding for new and ongoing research in 2025, accounting for losses of more than $500 million.

But things have somehow gotten worse, Pardoll said. For the last year, fewer Hopkins researchers have won new federal grants. And when they do, he said, the money is delayed or they never get it at all.

Several researchers, from those who spend time in a lab to those who run trials of new therapies, said funding cuts can lead to devastating losses. Now, they are tightly controlling their budgets, reconsidering who they hire in their labs and trying to become less dependent on federal grants, particularly those that could run afoul of new political priorities.

Hopkins leaders also say a decline in grant acceptances is “concerning.”

It’s not just Hopkins that’s experiencing the losses, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Newly released data shows that the NIH has so far only disbursed around 15% of the estimated $38 billion it can distribute in contracts and grants to universities and research institutions.

As of March 20, the NIH had obligated $5.8 billion, 34% below the total obligated at the same point when President Joe Biden was in office. There have been 63% fewer new awards, the medical group found.

That is especially worrisome for Maryland, long a powerhouse in biomedical research, with Hopkins leading the pack. The university earned $866 million in funding from the NIH in fiscal 2025, which ended June 30.

Nearly 130 Maryland universities, nonprofits and biomedical companies took in $214 billion in NIH funding last fiscal year, according to the newly-released annual economic analysis by United for Medical Research, which advocates for greater investment in biomedical research.

“We’re close to halfway through the fiscal year and we’re very far behind, well behind where we typically would have been in the funding obligated or the number of grants,” said Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy and regulatory counsel at the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The analysis found the funding supported more than 19,000 jobs and generated nearly $4.7 billion in economic activity in the state. But Trump administration cuts threaten to derail that.

Theodore “Jack” Iwashyna, a Hopkins critical care physician and health services researcher, has had several federally funded projects paused.

One interruption was relatively small. It took a month, rather than the usual two days, for a mid-grant review of a study to determine how to help patients recover more quickly from pneumonia, a serious lung infection.

Another, a training program, has stalled completely. It embeds researchers in medical care so they better understand the variations in how science is used. For that one, Iwashyna has asked officials at Hopkins for “bridge” funding, but that pool is limited.

Universities like Hopkins have scrambled to preserve staff, students, research and clinical trials where people are getting treatments. The university tapped some of its $13.2 billion endowment and launched a Pivot Grant program last year in an effort to plug the financial hole.

But it’s oftentimes not enough, said Adrian Dobs, the director of the Johns Hopkins Clinical Research Network and a professor at the university.

“People have had to go beg for some temporary support,” Dobs said. “It’s harder to continue with your research.”

She said some of her colleagues are changing research topics to subjects the Trump administration is more interested in, such as nutrition, to improve their chances of getting grants. That means, Dobs said, likely fewer vaccine breakthroughs in the next five to 10 years as scientists cut back on research not a priority for the current administration.

Further long-term consequences could include other nations, like China, will soon catch up to the United States, which has long been seen as one of the leaders in scientific research.

“United States’ lead on research will definitely fall during this time,” she warned. “You’re not going to see it tomorrow, but you’ll see in five years from now, 10 years from now.”

Banner reporter Alissa Zhu contributed to this report.

About the Education Hub

This reporting is part of The Banner’s Education Hub, community-funded journalism that provides parents with resources they need to make decisions about how their children learn. Read more.