Cancer research funders and advocates are feeling the effects of March’s continuing resolution, which cut funding for cancer research, and the administration’s termination of approximately 800 National Institutes of Health (NIH) research projects and the mass firings of NIH scientists and grant administrators. They’re also keeping a close eye on the administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s decision to block a plan that would cap the amount of funding the NIH provides to cover the “indirect costs” of research at 15% in the grants it disburses. Opponents argue the move would generate a $4 billion shortfall in federal support for universities and academic medical centers.
The NIH provides about $8 billion in cancer science funding annually in the U.S., and funding leaders I contacted believe that the cuts are hindering life-saving cancer research and patient care. As a result, they are speaking out with a level of clarity and firmness unusual in philanthropy right now, as we’re seeing many backers of hot-button issues choose to take a cautious public approach to the administration’s moves or even stay silent.
“The speed of the changes happening in Washington, D.C., makes it impossible to track the full scope of the impact,” said Leukemia & Lymphoma Society President and CEO E. Anders Kolb, MD. “But it’s clear that the federal government’s actions — especially the sudden nature of those actions and the uncertainty they’ve caused — have led institutions to put hiring freezes into effect, pause or limit admissions to Ph.D. programs, and in some cases, even rescind acceptances. There have been layoffs, and the National Science Foundation has downsized its summer research program.”
Colorectal Cancer Alliance CEO Michael Sapienza provided a similarly dire analysis. “Grantees have been directly impacted by these changes to federal funding,” he said. “Due to the cuts in the [March] continuing resolution, our partners will receive less money to continue their life-saving efforts. In addition, they have already started to place freezes on salaries, personnel and equipment. In some cases, clinical trials have been stopped, as well, jeopardizing the discovery of new treatments and therapies that could improve patient outcomes.”
One funder ramping up to counteract federal cuts is the Cancer Research Institute (CRI). A National Postdoctoral Association survey found that 43% of postdoctoral researchers said their positions were threatened due to federal policy decisions. Another 35% said their research had been “delayed or otherwise in jeopardy.”
In response, the CRI will allocate $2.5 million from its reserve funds to support 10 additional postdoctoral fellowships over the next year. The decision brings the CRI’s total commitment to postdoctoral funding to $11.2 million for the year, which accounts for an approximate 30% increase over what it had originally intended to allocate. “These fellowships will help sustain cancer research at a time when federal funding uncertainty has left many scientists in limbo,” the organization said.
CRI’s assessment underscores recurring themes in funders’ response to NIH cuts. Leaders worry the cuts will have devastating ripple effects across the cancer research continuum, as we called it in IP’s 2023 Funding Report on Cancer Research Giving. In addition, many cancer research funders also operate as patient advocacy organizations, engaging in activities like education, patient care and, naturally, advocacy. Given this broad charter, their strongly worded press releases suggest that rather than keeping their heads down, these organizations will flex their advocacy muscles to push back against the president’s draconian approach.
“Philanthropy has to play a bigger role in filling these funding gaps”
Cuts in federal medical research funding have raised the familiar debate on what philanthropy’s role should be in this fraught and unstable environment. “No single private foundation can replace the investment made by the government in public health,” said a spokesperson for breast cancer research funder Susan G. Komen in response to my questions about the cuts. The sentiment applies to other areas where the administration is wielding the chainsaw, and it’s a reminder that we need to temper any hopes that philanthropy could ride to the rescue if even more draconian cuts materialize.
That said, 50,000-plus foundations with more than $1 million in assets were sitting on approximately $1.55 trillion in noncharitable-use assets in 2024 that could be used for grantmaking, according to an analysis by FoundationMark Founder and President John Seitz.
That figure likely has dropped somewhat due the ongoing market volatility, but it underscores what has historically been the largest source of support for cancer research — individual donors, many of whom move money through private foundations. These individuals also pour money into donor-advised funds (DAFs).
The National Philanthropic Trust found that DAF holders in 2024 were sitting on a combined $251.5 billion in total charitable assets. To put this figure in perspective, NIH’s total budget of $8 billion would account for just 3.2% of all the assets controlled by DAF holders.
To be clear, no one to my knowledge is arguing that these individuals — who, it’s worth remembering, get an immediate tax break for contributing to a DAF — should liquidate their assets and assume the role of a proxy federal appropriator. But many commentators who are keeping tabs on the administration’s fiscal priorities are asking funders to increase their payouts due to the unfathomable amount of assets sitting in funders’ endowments and DAF accounts that are often less susceptible to dramatic market gyrations.
“Philanthropy has to play a bigger role in filling these funding gaps if Americans want to see advances in much-needed cancer treatments, improved outcomes and, ultimately, a cure,” said Colorectal Cancer Alliance CEO Sapienza. “If the federal government continues to cut cancer research funds, philanthropists and nonprofit organizations like the Colorectal Cancer Alliance must do more, or progress will not happen.”
Funders are mostly holding off on any dramatic changes to grantmaking outlays
While the cuts are bad enough, their unpredictable and arbitrary nature has left cancer research funders in a kind of operational purgatory.
“Academic institutions often structure their research programs based on funding they get from the federal government,” said the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Kolb. “Without time to adjust, they are cutting programs, graduate student numbers and support.” This uncertainty trickles down to grantmakers whose strategy is informed by where federal funding flows.
When NIH funding wasn’t under the knife, grantmakers could complement federal dollars in a certain area or decide to engage in more high-risk/high-reward research in collaboration with partners in the pharmaceutical and biotech fields. Now, with that funding at risk, funders are considering whether to dip into their reserves to plug gaps, reallocate funding intended for other organizations, or stay the course.
“We have a variety of research funding streams that we could ramp up or down,” Kolb said. “These include academic grants, venture philanthropy investments, and even two master clinical trials we support directly. These trials are accelerating more effective treatments for acute leukemia in both children and adults.”
On the whole, responding funders are taking what I can best describe as a measured but committed stance in the face of ongoing uncertainty emanating from the nation’s capital.
“The V Foundation for Cancer Research’s grantmaking approach remains consistent,” said V Foundation Chief Scientific Officer Susanna Greer. “We are committed to granting transformative research, with 100% of direct donations funding the best and brightest scientists. We only solicit competitive research proposals from the 73 National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers and other outstanding cancer centers in North America.”
“The Colorectal Cancer Alliance recognizes that this will have a dramatic effect on the landscape of cancer research and healthcare in general,” said Colorectal Cancer Alliance CEO Sapienza. “As the leading nonprofit dedicated to ending colorectal cancer, the alliance will be tripling down on our efforts to fund as much cutting-edge, high-risk, high-reward research as possible through Project Cure CRC, while continuing to emphasize the need for lifesaving preventative measures across the country.”
In addition, a representative from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) told me that the association will be “surveying its grantees to determine if they’ve been directly impacted by federal funding changes.”
Related Inside Philanthropy Resources:
For Subscribers Only
Funders are forcefully and publicly pushing back against federal cuts
The Cancer Research Institute’s decision to support an additional 10 postdoctoral fellowships underscores fears articulated by other responding funders about how federal cuts may lead to a cancer research brain drain.
“From what we’ve observed, the largest impact may be to the research workforce and the investment necessary to strengthen it — not only to advance treatments but also to drive innovation in prevention, early detection, diagnosis and comprehensive breast cancer treatment and care,” Susan G. Komen said in a statement, “Komen is concerned that changes to federal research funding will force next gen out, which will slow scientific progress/cancer care and it can put public health programs at risk and slow progress in saving all lives from breast cancer.”
A rep from the AACR pointed me to a February 18 press release noting that “abrupt and indiscriminate dismissals of dedicated public servants within NIH’s scientific workforce,” among many of the administration’s actions, were “jeopardizing progress and delaying innovations and treatments that are pivotal to improving patient outcomes and saving lives.”
Funders’ strong language flies in the face of a recurring theme in IP’s post-election coverage — that funders have been relatively quiet about publicly pushing back against the administration’s policies. Cancer affects countless individuals, including those working at these organizations, many of which exist to take vigorous policy stands. Every respondent forcefully decried the administration’s proposed cuts or directed me to a press release making the same argument.
“The proposed year-long continuing resolution [that Congress passed in March] includes unacceptable cuts to cancer research supported by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) and fails to include increases for research and programs at the National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network President Lisa Lacasse said in a March statement.
After the resolution passed, the Colorectal Cancer Alliance noted in a blog post that funding for the CDMRP was cut by 57%, a reduction of $859 million. “As Congress begins to work on its fiscal year 2026 budget, it’s important we work to restore funds that support vital cancer and medical research,” the post notes, before providing readers with instructions to contact their congressional representative and sample verbiage to include in an email.
The CCA’s approach mirrors the AACR’s February 18 statement, which “urges Congress to restore stability to NIH” and includes a link taking viewers to a page where they can contact their member of Congress.
At a time when many grantmakers are tiptoeing around an administration that’s committed to a “flooding the zone” strategy that has left many Americans shell shocked to the point of resigned inaction, the moral clarity of cancer research funders’ messaging is refreshing.
“Simply put, without robust and reliable NIH funding, research institutions will be forced to conduct less research,” said Kolb of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. “The pace of high-quality, impactful advances will slow. And patients will suffer.”
