The National Institutes of Health is obligating grant money roughly 42 days behind its historical pace through early July 2026, after running 44 days behind in fiscal 2025 — a slowdown that has left billions of dollars appropriated by Congress sitting uncommitted three-quarters of the way through the fiscal year.

That figure, tracked by Heather Pierce of the Association of American Medical Colleges, comes from NIH ExPORTER data pulled by NPR and Grant Witness in July 2026. As of July, the agency had obligated only about half its roughly $47.5 billion budget. NIH distributes more than 80% of its funds as extramural grants.

The top-line budget numbers suggest continuity. The Trump administration proposed cutting the NIH budget by 41%, or about $19.6 billion, for fiscal 2026, and restructuring 27 institutes down to eight — eliminating four outright. Congress did neither, maintaining existing institutes and appropriations on par with prior years. Courts have restored terminated funding in some cases.

But the disruption sits in how the money moves, not how much of it exists.

A 'black hole' in the pipeline

Jennifer Troyer, former director of extramural operations at the National Human Genome Research Institute, oversaw billions in grants before resigning at the end of 2025. She describes a new review layer that grants now pass through before issuance — one she calls a "black hole."

"There's a status called Status 19 I didn't, even as the director, I did not know existed until things started getting stuck," she says, "because it was something that [grants] would blip through for, like, a few minutes." Awards she had signed would go out and return flagged as unacceptable — by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Management and Budget or the White House. Initially, she says, the Department of Government Efficiency did the flagging; "and then they went away, but the other systems had been put in place to do the same function."

Staffing losses compound the delay. Her institute's grants-management staff fell from 11 specialists plus two assistants to three specialists. "We did not have the person-time to put awards out the door," she says.

Renewal delays hit lab operations directly

For R&D managers, the operational risk shows up in renewals of already-awarded, multi-year grants, which pay salaries and clinical trial medical care as well as lab work. Renewals historically arrived about a week early to prevent gaps. In the past two years, renewals have come in 90 or more days late at rates four to six times the fiscal 2021–2024 baseline: 3.9% in fiscal 2025 and 2.7% in fiscal 2026, versus 0.7% previously.

Ryan Gutenkunst, head of Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Arizona, began planning staff cuts when his renewal stalled. His university provided bridge funding, and the grant renewed two and a half months later. But institutional bridge funding typically carries a 90-day repayment window. "It's really bad if it goes past 90 days," he says — extended delays have in some cases meant lost research, layoffs and growing institutional reluctance to extend bridges.

The delays are systemic, not regional. In Democratic congressional districts, renewals shifted from 3.4 days early to 8.4 days late; in Republican districts, from 3.8 days early to 8.0 days late.

Portfolio shifts: measured losses, measured gains

Funding for racial- and ethnic-minority health research fell by more than $1 billion in 2025 — a 29% drop from 2024. Machine learning and AI research gained $468 million, and networking and information technology gained $368 million, two of the five largest increases. The shifts track administration priorities: executive orders targeting "radical" and "wasteful" DEI programs, and the August 2025 NIH unified funding strategy naming AI a priority.

A new system flags grants containing disfavored terms — including "climate change," "DEI," "gender" and "vaccine hesitancy," according to reporting by Nature. Troyer estimates about half of outgoing awards had to be renegotiated, with institutions, principal investigators and program directors agreeing on new language in titles, specific aims and abstracts. Mariana Stern of USC's Keck School of Medicine renamed her CaRE2 Health Equity Center the CaRE2 Health Center, omitting "equity."

The cuts have measurable staffing consequences. Scarlett Lin Gomez at UCSF leads the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, funded by the National Cancer Institute. Its funding fell from $5.4 million in 2024 to $4.4 million in 2025 and $3.7 million in 2026. "We've not had a cut of this magnitude at all — by far," she says. She let go about seven of roughly 50 lab employees last year and expects five or six more cuts this year.

Training grants funding students and trainees have also seen significant delays. Stern sees a pipeline effect: "More and more are choosing industry, because it's easier, the pay is better and they don't have to struggle with funding the way we do." Gomez calls it "an academic brain drain" that the current environment will "further hasten."

The official position — and what may come next

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard, in an August email, defended the approach: "The Unified Funding Strategy ensures that the NIH embraces transparency, scientific rigor, and unbiased, evidence-driven research." She added that institute and center directors make final funding decisions "after considering multiple factors, consistent with longstanding federal grantmaking practices."

Not all observers oppose reform. Ian Banks of the Foundation for American Innovation, who has advised the White House on science policy, argues the agency "desperately needed substantial reform," citing a 2018 survey showing principal investigators spend over 44% of their time on non-research activities — a figure he believes now exceeds 50% — as a driver of Eroom's law, the trend of rising time and cost per biomedical innovation. He does not favor cutting overall funding.

Scientists draw a distinction between reform and opaque control. "That's a legitimate debate to have," Gutenkunst says. "But it should be an open debate. It shouldn't be a hidden list of words that is dictating things."

That concern now centers on a proposed OMB rule that would give political appointees final say over federal grantmaking. Researchers expect it to add further restrictions and expand executive control if implemented. Congress, meanwhile, has kept the budget intact in successive bills — but with obligations still running weeks behind and renewal lateness at record rates, grantees should plan for continued disbursement lag heading into the next fiscal cycle.