NIH Plans to Cut Climate Research Funding

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is moving to terminate funding for climate-related health research, according to internal documents and reports, sparking widespread concern among scientists, public health experts, and advocacy groups. This policy shift aligns with the Trump administration’s broader agenda to deprioritize climate science, raising alarms about its consequences for public health and scientific integrity 126.

Details of the Funding Cuts

1. Scope of Terminated Research:

   • The NIH will no longer fund studies on topics such as climate-change literacy, climate anxiety, and greenhouse gas mitigation (e.g., projects to develop climate-friendly asthma inhalers) 15.

   • Research on the root causes of climate change, including fossil fuel impacts, is excluded from future grants, while studies on extreme weather events (e.g., wildfires, heatwaves) will continue under the rebranded Health and Extreme Weather Initiative 16.

2. Impacted Programs:

   • The Climate Change and Health Initiative (CCHI), launched in 2021 with $40 million in annual congressional funding, was dismantled in March 2025. Two related programs, the Climate and Health Scholars Program and Climate Change and Health Research Coordinating Center, were also shuttered 28.

   • Over 200 NIH-funded projects—including studies on wildfire health impacts, heat-related fertility issues, and mosquito-borne diseases like dengue—are now at risk 68.

3. Funding Redirection:

   • The NIH’s 48.6billionbudgetremainsflatundera2025ContinuingResolution,butspecificprogramstiedtothe∗∗21stCenturyCuresAct∗∗facea48.6billionbudgetremainsflatundera2025ContinuingResolution,butspecificprogramstiedtothe∗∗21stCenturyCuresAct∗∗facea280 million cut, exacerbating resource constraints 13.

Rationale and Political Context

• Administration Priorities: The Trump administration has framed the cuts as part of its effort to prioritize "gold-standard, evidence-based science" and focus on "directly affecting the health of Americans" 26. Critics argue this aligns with fossil fuel industry interests, as climate research threatens policies favoring oil and gas production 25.

• Systemic Erasure: Federal websites, including NIH and EPA portals, have purged climate-related content, and the EPA’s scientific research office faces potential closure, risking over 1,000 jobs 86.

Scientific and Public Health Concerns

1. Vulnerable Populations:

   • Marginalized communities, including Alaska Natives and low-income regions like Appalachia, rely on NIH-funded research to address climate-linked health disparities. Cuts hinder preparedness for disasters like the 2023 Maui wildfires 56.

2. Ethical Violations:

   • Halting research on climate change’s health impacts violates the NIH’s mission to "enhance health and reduce illness," according to Dr. Kristie Ebi, a climate health expert at the University of Washington 1.

3. Global Health Risks:

   • Climate change exacerbates infectious diseases, malnutrition, and heat-related illnesses. Without NIH support, the U.S. loses capacity to model emerging threats, such as dengue virus spread or air pollution interactions 58.

Broader Implications

• Research Exodus: Scientists may relocate to countries with robust climate research funding, such as EU member states, which launched a €1B Quantum Flagship 2.0 for applied science 8.

• Legal Challenges: Lawsuits by environmental and farming groups aim to restore deleted climate data, citing public access rights. A recent court order forced the CDC to reinstate its climate-vulnerability index 8.

Expert Reactions

• Dr. Lisa Patel (Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health):
  “This is catastrophic. The administration is doing the fossil fuel industry’s bidding, leaving Americans unprepared for health crises driven by climate change” 26.

• Linda Birnbaum (Former NIH Director):
  “If NIH doesn’t study climate health impacts, we can’t prevent them. This is a direct threat to public health” 6.

Conclusion

The NIH’s funding cuts reflect a politicized shift away from climate science, prioritizing short-term industry interests over long-term public health. While the administration claims to focus on “extreme weather,” critics warn this narrow scope ignores systemic drivers of health disparities. The scientific community’s pushback—coupled with legal challenges—highlights the urgency of restoring climate research to mitigate preventable suffering and deaths.