Within two months of taking office, President Donald Trump has already cut funding for many departments within the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk. The cuts to the National Institute of Health (NIH) hit especially hard, removing funding from many research institutions.

The NIH is the federal agency responsible for conducting and supporting medical research. Their mission statement is to “seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.”

According to the New York Times, in 2024, $32 billion was spent on grants, with $23 billion going to direct costs and $9 billion going to overhead costs. These overhead costs are what the Trump administration attempts to target, but what they’re missing is that overhead costs are incredibly important to research. Without them, the United States will fall behind in the scope of worldwide research progress.

The NIH has served an essential role in the development of medications in the U.S. A data assessment from the JAMA Health Forum found that the NIH funded the creation of 99% of drugs approved between 2010 and 2019, ranging from cancer treatments to advancements in gene editing. With funding being frozen for some institutions, these developments are bound to grind to a halt. This means that the United States simply will not be able to research as quickly as other countries. This inevitably leads to less innovation, as the funds for the backend operations required aren’t being provided.

Biology teacher and PHS Research Program head Jennifer Smolyn relied on government funding for the multiple research programs and labs that she participated in during her college years. “I think colleges and universities are going to have to think about who gets to do research. They’ll probably shift the focus more towards graduate students, and there will be fewer opportunities for undergraduates, is what I would guess is kind of the easiest fix,” said Smolyn. “But they will definitely need to think about where the funding is going, how they’re allocating resources, and to whom.”

Smolyn says that she is trying to be optimistic about the situation, but reading the news about these funding cuts is alarming and discouraging. However, she is still positive about the fact that the U.S. will remain a world leader in scientific research and progress despite these cuts. “I don’t know that I would say we’ll lose our position entirely, but I do think it will be more of a challenge to … hold the standard of academic research that we do,” says Smolyn.

Although the funding cuts only directly affect the NIH, PHS will also inevitably feel its tremors. As the student Research Program relies on money from the New Jersey State Department of Education, which gets its money from taxpayers, this funding cut will likely affect PHS’s ability to support particularly resource-heavy student projects. Research is an integral part of PHS’s academic culture, and PHS students should be aware of these far reaching policies when casting their votes in the future.