"While the National Institutes of Health (NIH) fully obligated its budget in fiscal year 2026, a significant decrease in the number of grants awarded, particularly compared to pre-2024 levels, raises concerns about the future pipeline of medical research and its potential impact on patient treatments."
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a cornerstone of biomedical research funding in the United States, awarded approximately 56,600 grants in fiscal year 2026. This figure represents a notable reduction of roughly 7,400 fewer grants compared to fiscal year 2024, a period immediately preceding the current administration’s budget cycle. While the agency successfully obligated its entire allocated funding, an analysis by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), reported by Inside Higher Ed, highlights that this decline in award numbers is a critical trend for the scientific community and, ultimately, for patients awaiting groundbreaking medical advancements.
The significance of the comparison year cannot be overstated. In fiscal year 2024, the NIH distributed around 64,000 grants, a benchmark that underscores the approximate 12% decrease observed by fiscal year 2026. Even when contrasted with fiscal year 2025, during which approximately 58,500 grants were awarded, the reduction of 1,900 awards indicates a consistent downward trajectory in the volume of funded research projects. NIH grants are instrumental in supporting a vast majority of the nation’s fundamental and clinical medical research. A reduction in the sheer number of awards, even if total funding remains constant, can translate to fewer new research initiatives being launched, potentially slowing the pace of discovery and the development of novel treatments for a wide array of diseases.
The reduction in grant awards was not confined to a specific category but was observed across research project grants, other research and development grants, and training and career development awards. This broad impact, as reported by CIDRAP, suggests a systemic shift in how NIH funding is being allocated and utilized.
A primary driver behind this trend is the increasing reliance on "forward funding," also known as multiyear funding. Traditionally, the NIH has funded most grants on an annual basis. However, under the forward funding model, the entire multiyear budget for a grant is disbursed at the outset. While this approach offers greater certainty for recipients and allows for more ambitious, long-term research endeavors, it has the consequence of tying up a larger portion of a single year’s funds. Consequently, this leaves less capital available for the initiation of new awards within that fiscal year. The AAMC elaborates on this mechanism, explaining how the upfront disbursement of funds can significantly impact the number of new grants that can be competitively funded.
In fiscal year 2026, the NIH directed approximately $1.9 billion towards multiyear-funded awards, a decrease from the $2.1 billion allocated in the preceding year. The fiscal year 2026 spending legislation imposed a cap on multiyear obligations, limiting them to the prior year’s level, as indicated by the AAMC. This budgetary constraint, coupled with the NIH’s strategic decision to reserve half of its funding for competing research project grants specifically for awards paid fully upfront, contributed to the diminished number of new grant opportunities.
It is important to acknowledge that different methodologies for counting grants can yield slightly varied figures. A separate analysis by STAT News concerning fiscal year 2026 awards estimated that the NIH funded around 58,000 projects, a decrease from approximately 61,000 in fiscal year 2025. This analysis also noted that potential reporting lags could lead to a slightly higher final count. Nevertheless, the general trend of fewer awards remains consistent across these different assessments.
NIH leadership maintains that the agency has successfully met its financial obligations. In March 2026, Director Jay Bhattacharya reassured a House Appropriations subcommittee that the NIH would expend its full budget by the fiscal year’s end, a commitment that was ultimately fulfilled. The agency has articulated that the upfront funding approach enhances its ability to manage resources across multiple years and provides greater budgetary flexibility.
Furthermore, the NIH has emphasized its dedication to supporting early-career scientists. In a notable announcement on October 8, 2026, the NIH revealed that a record 1,648 early-stage investigators received major research grants in fiscal year 2026, representing a 25% increase above the 10-year average. This initiative aims to foster the next generation of scientific leaders and ensure a robust pipeline of innovative research.
However, critics, including the AAMC, argue that merely obligating the entire budget does not necessarily signify a healthy research ecosystem. The AAMC’s analysis posits that the health of the research system cannot be solely evaluated by whether all funds are disbursed by the fiscal year’s close. As quoted by Inside Higher Ed, the authors of the AAMC analysis stated, "Institutions require a stable and predictable funding environment throughout the year to plan research programs." Significant fluctuations in the pace of funding or the total number of grants awarded can create considerable challenges for research institutions. These unpredictable funding landscapes make it difficult to effectively budget for essential personnel, including the recruitment of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, who are vital to the continuity and advancement of scientific inquiry.
The sluggish pace of grant distribution throughout fiscal year 2026 attracted considerable attention. By early March 2026, the NIH had issued 74% fewer new competitive awards compared to the average for the same period between fiscal years 2021 and 2024, according to an analysis from Johns Hopkins University cited by STAT News. Compounding these concerns, Inside Higher Ed reported that hundreds of grants that were previously frozen or terminated prematurely had not been reinstated, further disrupting ongoing research efforts.
The reduction in new awards directly impacts the success rate for grant applications. For instance, the National Cancer Institute indicated in July 2025 that it anticipated funding only about 4% of its primary R01 and R21 grant applications, a significant drop from the typical 9% success rate, as reported by the AAMC. This decreased success rate can discourage researchers, particularly those early in their careers, and potentially steer talent away from pursuing grant-funded research.
For patients, the ramifications of these funding shifts are often indirect and manifest over a longer timeframe. The precise impact of a reduced number of grants is difficult to quantify immediately, as it is not always clear which specific studies were lost or would have yielded significant breakthroughs. While fewer awards do not automatically equate to a decline in research quality or output, they undeniably narrow the pathway for novel projects to emerge. These are precisely the types of ambitious, high-impact studies that can eventually lead to the development of new clinical trials and, subsequently, life-saving treatments. Researchers surveyed by STAT News echoed these sentiments, reporting that delays in grant decisions made it more challenging to conceptualize and execute innovative and impactful research.
The trajectory of NIH funding policies suggests that these trends may persist. The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 includes a provision to pay the full future-year costs of all competing research project grants upfront, a policy that aligns with the increasing emphasis on forward funding, as noted by the AAMC. Congress will deliberate on this proposal as it crafts the appropriations bills for the upcoming fiscal year.
Lawmakers are closely monitoring the NIH’s grant-making decisions. This heightened scrutiny is exemplified by previous reports from MedicalDaily, detailing how the White House ultimately rescinded a directive that would have granted political appointees veto power over NIH grants, following significant pushback from Senator Susan Collins. Such instances underscore the ongoing dialogue and potential legislative interventions surrounding the allocation and administration of federal research funding.
Key Questions Answered:
- How many fewer grants did NIH award? In fiscal year 2026, the NIH awarded approximately 7,400 fewer grants compared to fiscal year 2024, and about 1,900 fewer grants than in fiscal year 2025.
- Did NIH spend its whole budget? Yes, the NIH successfully obligated all of its allocated funds in both fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026.
- What is forward funding? Forward funding, also referred to as multiyear funding, involves paying the entire multiyear budget for a grant at the commencement of the award. This practice, while providing long-term stability for funded projects, can reduce the amount of money available for new awards within a given fiscal year.
- What does NIH say? NIH leaders state that the agency has fulfilled its spending commitments and that the upfront funding approach enhances budgetary flexibility and aids in multiyear resource management.
- What do critics say? Critics, particularly the AAMC, contend that the complete utilization of funds may mask underlying disruptions, such as a reduction in the number of new awards and an unstable funding environment that hinders strategic planning for research institutions.
- Does this affect patients? Indirectly, yes. A decrease in the number of new research grants can potentially slow the development of innovative studies that are crucial for advancing future medical treatments and therapies.
