Home > News > Trump’s NIH restrictions could cost lives and weaken defense
35 views 9 min 0 Comment

Trump’s NIH restrictions could cost lives and weaken defense

National Institutes of Health research is critical to American health – and U.S. military preparedness.

- February 5, 2025
Trump's NIH restrictions in 2025 pose a threat to national security.
President Trump tours the viral pathogenesis laboratory at the National Institutes of Health on March 3, 2020 (White House photo by Shealah Craighead).

Last week, President Trump threw the science world into chaos by issuing abrupt and wide-ranging restrictions on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its parent U.S. government agency, the Department of Health of Human Services (HHS). The administration implemented an immediate hiring freeze, an indefinite ban on employee travel, a pause on all communications, and the cancellation of meetings, including grant review panels. Although federal funds have now been unfrozen for previously approved projects, the restrictions noted above remain in place

These actions carry deleterious consequences for public health by delaying lifesaving cures and reducing America’s ability to protect against and respond to infectious diseases. Trump’s policies also undermine American national security, precisely because public health is itself a national security issue.

What is the NIH, and what does it do?

The NIH is the world’s largest funder of biomedical research, investing over $40 billion annually to support research across the health sciences. This includes vaccine development, cancer research, and lifesaving treatments for infectious diseases, among other programs. NIH was a leader in researching the effects of childhood exposure to lead, for example, resulting in the removal of lead from paint and gasoline, saving billions of dollars and safeguarding the health of several generations of Americans. 

In more recent years, NIH funding has supported the development of covid-19 and RSV vaccines, improved treatments for drug addiction – including the development of Narcan, to counter the effects of an overdose – and led to rapid advancements in Alzheimer’s and dementia treatments. Right now NIH researchers are undertaking critical work with regard to the ongoing avian flu outbreak. NIH also offers critical training opportunities for the next generation of biomedical scientists, an ongoing and important contribution to U.S. global leadership in health research.

Without the ability to hold proposal review panels and advisory committee meetings, the NIH cannot issue grants, effectively stopping research in its tracks. Grant review panels, scheduled months in advance, are composed of experts from around the country and cannot easily be rescheduled. Even a brief pause in these activities will delay new research projects by months. Without the ability to travel and communicate, researchers whose work is supported by NIH cannot attend meetings that would allow them to share important findings with other researchers worldwide. Part of the reason the scientific community was able to mount such a rapid response to covid-19 was because researchers were able to share results quickly. Communication freezes, like those enacted recently, will inhibit progress towards scientific consensus and slow our responses to emerging threats.

These actions reflect the Trump administration’s broader political agenda

Why take aim at the NIH, specifically? Some critics see targeting the NIH as part of Trump’s broader “war on education.” Vice President JD Vance has labeled universities “the enemy,” and Trump has made it explicitly clear he intends to overhaul American higher education. NIH grants account for a substantial amount of the funding received by medical schools nationwide. NIH funding also supports research and education initiatives across a wide spectrum of colleges and universities. 

These actions also appear part of Trump’s larger plans to gut the civil service, sow chaos within the federal government, and undermine public trust in institutions. Trump’s pick to run HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has openly stated he plans to fire and replace a large chunk of the agency’s staff and shift research away from infectious diseases and vaccine development. Kennedy, a well-known vaccine skeptic and conspiracy theorist, has openly promoted dangerous (and inaccurate) views about public health. 

Trump’s pick to lead NIH directly, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, is also a vocal critic of America’s health institutions. Bhattacharya spoke out against covid-19 restrictions and has suggested he would base NIH grant awards on his views of individual campus academic freedom policies. These actions would undermine America’s scientific institutions and further politicize public health.

Public health, biomedical research, and national security are critically entwined 

All of these actions threaten the future of science, but also directly undermine America’s military preparedness and security infrastructure. Global health security is essential for the maintenance of U.S. national security more broadly. As the covid-19 pandemic clearly showed, outbreaks of infectious diseases do not respect national borders. Biological and chemical agents from terrorist or state-led attacks can spread rapidly, overwhelming hospital systems and leaving chaos in their wake. Without a clear infrastructure focused on preventing, treating, and responding to global health threats, the United States cannot be secure. 

Major disease outbreaks can lead to travel restrictions, economic instability, and broader trade disruptions, such as those observed with the covid-19 pandemic. Trump’s own 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) directly linked both naturally occurring disease outbreaks and targeted biological attacks as critical threats to American national security by “taking lives, generating economic losses, and contributing to a loss of confidence in government institutions.” This report further advocated for strengthening emergency response preparedness to increase national security. 

Public health also influences military effectiveness

Leaders have long recognized the relationship between public health concerns, military preparedness, and force readiness. Research shows that both public health advances and improvements in military medicine increase military effectiveness. George Washington, for example, required all Continental Army troops to be inoculated against smallpox in 1777. He recognized that protecting his army against deadly infectious disease was critical to winning the war against Great Britain. During World War II, the U.S. government launched an extensive public health campaign to warn soldiers and sailors about venereal diseases (VD). During the early days of the war, estimates indicate VD left approximately 18,000 servicemen each day unable to fight. By 1944, a combination of public education campaigns and improved medical treatments for VD substantially reduced this number. 

In 2025, NIH researchers are on the vanguard of biodefense programs, focusing on developing countermeasures to potential terrorist threats as well as broader response mechanisms to naturally occurring outbreaks. This research covers biological and chemical warfare agents, as well as treatments for radiation exposure (such as from nuclear attacks). The NIH also works closely with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop pain management programs for active duty service members and veterans. 

Health security, therefore, is national security. The halting of NIH programs not only carries serious consequences for the broader safety and security of everyday Americans, but also for the strength of the American military and its future preparedness.

Danielle Lupton is an associate professor of political science at Colgate University, where she studies civil-military relations and national security.

Anne Perring is an assistant professor of chemistry at Colgate University, where she studies atmospheric aerosols and their effects on climate and human health.