NIH Workers Protest Trump Administration Cuts Impacting Research

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of workers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) protested on Monday against budget cuts by the Trump administration, arguing these reductions are jeopardizing crucial health research.

The NIH employees expressed their concerns in a letter addressed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, stating they were compelled to act against policies that prioritize political agendas over public health and research integrity.

According to the letter, the administration’s policies have led to the termination of over 2,100 research grants valued at approximately $12 billion. Additionally, more than 1,000 employees were reportedly laid off this year, worsening the agency’s capacity to conduct vital biomedical research.

Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, remarked, “There are research participants who generously decide to donate their time… with the understanding that their service will help advance research for diseases they are dealing with.”

The workers have termed their collective efforts the “Bethesda Declaration,” in a nod to Bhattacharya’s previous controversial “Great Barrington Declaration” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response, Bhattacharya noted in an email that the employees’ letter includes “fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions” NIH has taken and acknowledged the importance of respectful dissent.

Critics highlighted the broader implications of these cuts, warning they compromise patient health and could halt critical studies aimed at addressing health disparities across various communities.

The NIH employs nearly 19,000 staff and has a budget of around $48 billion, making it the largest public funder of biomedical research globally. Employees fear that the ongoing changes may significantly diminish its role in advancing medical science.

As controversies continue, the NIH workers emphasized the necessity of reversing harmful policies to uphold their commitment to scientific integrity and public health. They remain hopeful their dissent will foster a renewed dialogue around research funding and ethical governance.