National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya faced tough questioning from senators of both parties on Capitol Hill Tuesday as he attempted to justify an administration budget proposal that would slash more than $18 billion from the agency’s biomedical research funding for 2026, representing a nearly 40 percent reduction of its total budget.
In his appearance before a Senate appropriations subcommittee, Bhattacharya sought to persuade skeptical lawmakers that the substantial funding cuts would not undermine the United States’ longstanding role as a global leader in biomedical research. He repeatedly emphasized President Trump’s stated commitment to maintaining American leadership in biomedicine. Yet, senators from both parties remained unconvinced, pointing out clear inconsistencies between the administration’s claimed dedication to medical innovation and the severe proposed cuts.
Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, called the budget proposal “disturbing,” warning that it would erase years of meaningful congressional investment in the NIH and jeopardize crucial medical breakthroughs. Collins expressed particular dismay at a 40 percent funding reduction proposed for the National Institute on Aging, an entity deeply engaged in promising Alzheimer’s research and the development of new diagnostic tools and treatments.
When pressed by Collins, Bhattacharya avoided directly defending the cuts, instead characterizing the budget as “a collaborative effort between Congress and the administration,” seemingly suggesting that lawmakers might restore the reductions.
Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington), the top Democrat on the appropriations panel, harshly criticized the administration’s already-enacted steep reductions, which have so far caused nearly 5,000 NIH employees to depart, prevented the awarding of approximately $3 billion in new grants, and forcibly terminated some 2,500 existing research projects. She cited a critical example involving a 23-year HIV vaccine research initiative at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which had been abruptly halted due to funding cutbacks despite being close to achieving significant breakthroughs.
Bhattacharya responded several times by restating his administration-approved talking point, calling the budget “a negotiation between Congress and the administration.” However, he struggled to justify specific decisions and could not comfortably address examples provided by senators of impairments to ongoing medical research. When confronted repeatedly by Murray, Bhattacharya acknowledged he would need to confirm details about the halted HIV vaccine effort.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) noted her agreement with the administration’s stated intention for American biomedical supremacy but expressed deep concern about the comparative impacts of drastic funding reductions: “It’s hard to understand how we’re going to get there when the budget slashes funding on critical areas of research, particularly where we’re competing directly with China,” Shaheen said. Bhattacharya gave no clearer rationale, falling silent in response.
Bhattacharya, formerly a professor of medicine, economics, and health policy at Stanford University prior to becoming NIH director this past April, appeared reluctant or unable to wholeheartedly defend the stark administrative position put forth in the budget proposal. At multiple points during questioning, he implicitly invited Congress to assume primary responsibility for restoring NIH funding.
Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) seized on these remarks, asking Bhattacharya if additional Congressional appropriations above the administration’s request would be well-spent. Bhattacharya acknowledged that there are indeed pressing public-health needs needing further support but declined to overtly challenge the proposed cuts, reiterating only that this negotiation is “a collaborative effort.”
As the Director repeatedly declined opportunities to directly defend or provide specifics about the steep reductions, senators from both sides of the aisle showed growing frustration. Though Bhattacharya emphasized his own commitment to biomedical excellence, the Senate panel collectively made it clear they viewed this budget proposal as incompatible with sustained progress in American health research and innovation.
