Presidential administrations make decisions that influence cancer research, affecting institutions, laws, and treatment availability. This exploration examines Donald Trump’s approach to cancer research and related policies.
Funding for Cancer Research
The Trump administration proposed significant cuts to NIH funding, including a nearly $1 billion reduction for cancer research in 2017. This proposal, amounting to a 20% decrease across the NIH budget, faced bipartisan opposition and was not enacted.
Despite these proposals, congressional appropriations for biomedical research generally increased. However, a March 2025 Senate committee report indicated the administration cut $2.7 billion in NIH research funding within three months, with federal cancer research funding specifically cut by 31%. The report also claimed over $180 million in NCI grants were terminated.
The administration also proposed capping indirect costs for NIH research grants at 15%, which Congress prohibited in annual appropriations bills since 2018. These funding discussions created instability for researchers, raising concerns about retaining talent and delaying biomedical research and drug approvals. The NIH provides about $8 billion annually for cancer research.
Key Legislative Actions
The Trump administration advanced legislative actions influencing cancer research and patient access. A significant example is the “Right to Try” Act, signed into law on May 30, 2018. This federal law allows patients with life-threatening diseases, who have exhausted approved treatments and cannot participate in clinical trials, to access investigational drugs that completed Phase I safety testing.
The “Right to Try” Act created an additional pathway for patients to seek unapproved therapies, separate from the FDA’s Expanded Access program. Proponents argued it empowered patients, while critics noted it permits but does not require companies to provide treatments. The law also includes liability protections for manufacturers, sponsors, physicians, and hospitals, except for willful misconduct or negligence.
The Trump administration’s influence on the Cancer Moonshot initiative, established by the 21st Century Cures Act, was complex. While not introducing a new comprehensive initiative, the administration contributed to pediatric cancer research. For example, President Trump announced $500 million over 10 years for the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative in 2019. However, 2025 reports indicated funding cuts disrupted millions in Cancer Moonshot awards, including grants for anti-cancer immunity research.
Scientific Priorities and Initiatives
The Trump administration emphasized certain scientific areas, including pediatric cancer research. This was demonstrated by the 2019 launch of the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative (CCDI). This 10-year, $500 million National Cancer Institute initiative aimed to establish a robust data ecosystem. The CCDI was designed to enhance the ability of researchers and clinicians to analyze, share, and utilize clinical and genetic data from pediatric cancer patients.
The administration also showed interest in accelerating drug discovery, precision medicine, and immunotherapy. While not a new comprehensive initiative, its actions aligned with speeding up new treatment development. The 21st Century Cures Act, signed before Trump took office, continued to influence efforts to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of new cancer treatments. This act provided FDA funding for initiatives like collaborative development and biomarker use.
Impact on Drug Development and Patient Access
The Trump administration’s policies, particularly those involving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), aimed to influence drug approval speed and the regulatory environment. The administration sought to accelerate the drug approval process by streamlining regulations. An executive order directed the FDA to reduce approval times for domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing plants by eliminating duplicative requirements.
The administration also explored increasing inspections of overseas manufacturing plants to boost domestic supply. In June 2025, the FDA announced faster reviews for medicines promoting “the health interests of Americans,” aiming to review select drugs in one to two months. This initiative involved “national priority vouchers” for companies aligned with U.S. national priorities, offering streamlined reviews.
These efforts to streamline FDA processes and accelerate drug approvals aimed to improve patient access. However, concerns arose about balancing speed with safety and efficacy standards. Patient advocacy groups worried that broad mandates could delay care and slow new research. Potential impacts on the pharmaceutical industry included efforts to reshore the U.S. drug supply chain and navigate new tariffs.