A group of former federal scientists have spoken about their decisions to leave the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during President Donald Trump’s second term, citing a difficult work environment and significant changes in agency priorities.
Marc Ernstoff, a physician known for his immunotherapy research, described his position as “untenable” under the Trump administration. Philip Stewart, who studied tick-borne diseases at Rocky Mountain Laboratories, said he retired two years early because job challenges became insurmountable. Alexa Romberg, an addiction prevention scientist focused on tobacco, noted that much of her research was lost after federal grants were withdrawn.
“If one is thinking about the 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda and the prevention of chronic disease,” Romberg said, “tobacco use is the No. 1 contributor to early morbidity and mortality that we can prevent.”
The NIH is recognized as the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research. Over many years, it has received broad bipartisan support from Congress and seen its budget increase accordingly.
“I’m so pleased to be associated with NIH,” former Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican and prominent supporter of the NIH in Congress, said in 2022 before retiring.
However, during Trump’s second term, more than 20% of NIH staff left their positions — about 4,400 people — according to federal data. Scientists say this loss affects national capabilities in responding to disease outbreaks and developing new treatments for chronic illnesses.
“People are going to get hurt,” said Sylvia Chou, who worked at the National Cancer Institute for over 15 years before leaving in January. “There’s going to be a lot more health challenges and even deaths, because we need science in order to help people get healthy.”
The number of NIH employees grew steadily between fiscal year 2019 (about 17,700 employees) and fiscal year 2024 (around 21,100). Those gains have been reversed; current staffing is at its lowest level in two decades — about 17,100 employees remain. Most departures resulted from retirements or resignations rather than dismissals.
Scientists reported being forced to end funding for certain topics deemed unacceptable by administration officials. Delays affected routine laboratory work due to restricted access to equipment and travel authorizations. Communication with those outside the agency was also limited or subject to strict controls.
Policies eliminating references to diversity or health equity were enforced across federally funded research programs. Initiatives supporting early-career scientists or studying how diseases affect different populations were reduced or eliminated.
In an op-ed published in January, Chou and Romberg wrote that they resigned because they opposed an administration “that treats science not as a process for building knowledge but as a means to advance its political agenda.”
Emily Hilliard from Health and Human Services responded that the agency had shifted toward evidence-based research over “ideological agendas.” She stated that recruiting efforts continue: “the best and brightest” are still sought out as part of advancing high-quality science for Americans’ benefit. The department oversees NIH operations.
“A major reset was overdue. HHS has taken action to streamline operations, reduce redundancies, and return to pre-pandemic employment levels,” Hilliard added.
Some departing scientists question whether current staffing allows NIH to fulfill its mission effectively.
“There’s been a fundamental destruction,” said Daniel Dulebohn from Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Montana. He left after nearly two decades working on infectious diseases like Lyme disease and HIV: "It’s going to take a very long time to rebuild."
Dulebohn specialized in biochemical analysis critical for developing new treatments but now lives abroad with his family while considering other career options: “We don’t know what we’ve lost.”
Laura Stark from Vanderbilt University argued that these losses could push U.S. medical research toward private industry interests rather than public health goals: "We just don't have people who are now able to pursue research for the public good."
Since World War II when it helped mass-produce penicillin for soldiers, NIH has played key roles in developing treatments for heart disease, cancer, diabetes and genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis. With bipartisan congressional support behind its $48.7 billion budget for fiscal year 2026 — most awarded externally — some worry funding alone cannot compensate if staff shortages persist.
Jennifer Troyer left her role at the National Human Genome Research Institute last December after leading divisions responsible for grant oversight related to human genetics studies: "There really are not enough people there right now... It's extreme harm." She resigned following an executive order prohibiting grants supporting what it called “anti-American values” while giving political appointees power over funding decisions: "I wasn't going operate a division under those orders."
Research priorities identified by current leadership may also suffer setbacks due both workforce reductions and operational delays; Stewart cited stalled efforts confirming spread patterns among ticks carrying Lyme disease despite rising cases nationwide each year.
Stewart summarized advice given within agencies: "Put your head down below the trench line... At what point do you finally say 'Enough is enough'?"
Early-career researchers increasingly look abroad due either uncertainty about future funding or fewer available jobs domestically amid grant cutbacks; experts warn this trend could undermine U.S leadership in global biomedical science with long-term effects on American patients’ access new discoveries.
Stanley Perlman from University of Iowa emphasized that global scientific prestige brings practical benefits by attracting top talent needed address local health issues; gaps created by halted projects may not be filled elsewhere soon enough: "If you don't have access how work was done it's harder reproduce adapt it your country."
KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed reporting.
