By Brendan Scanland
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The White House’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 is drawing sharp criticism from cancer research advocates, who say the plan would gut nearly 40 percent of funding for the National Cancer Institute (NCI)—just as cancer deaths are projected to rise nationwide.
Advocates say the proposed cuts, combined with sweeping changes in the recently passed “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act,” could deal a devastating blow to cancer research—especially for rare cancers and underserved communities.
In a year when more than 600,000 Americans are expected to die from cancer, the administration’s proposed budget calls for a $2.7 billion cut to the NCI—down 37.2% from current levels.
“Cutting the resources for NCI will drastically reduce our chances of coming up with cures for cancer,” said Missy Miller, the medical outreach director at the Mesothelioma Center.
Miller fears the proposed cuts and reduced funding for Medicaid could lead to fewer treatment options and reverse years of progress.
“The programs for prevention can really help them find out about it ahead of time,” Miller said. “These cuts that they’re proposing to the NCI’s budget could lead to fewer treatment options, delayed drug development, and also increased cancer mortality for these rare cancers—specifically in the underserved populations, which is where you’re going to see the biggest hit. Rural hospitals are going to be affected immensely, and that’s mainly because a lot of rural hospitals have Medicare and Medicaid patients.”
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are reacting.
“So, it’s devastating,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY.). “It would make a lot of cancer trials impossible. It would harm NIH-funded cancer research and clinical trials in New York because it will limit the amount of funding available for those research facilities overall.”
“New York has eight NCI-designated cancer centers that receive funding through the P30 Cancer Center Support Grants, which are included as part of NCI’s budget,” Gillibrand added. “Cutting the NCI’s budget effectively cuts those grants.”
But Republicans say any proposed cuts are purely theoretical—for now—and emphasize that Congress controls the federal purse.
“The president’s budget isn’t the Congress’s budget,” said Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY.). “I’ve not met someone yet here in the House of Representatives that isn’t for full-throated funding for cancer research. Cancer affects every socioeconomic corner, every state in the union, every community in the country. And it’s something that we have to be vigilant to fight against.”
Republicans are also pushing for more transparency in how grant dollars are allocated, insisting that most funds should go directly to cancer research.
“We’ve looked for transparency in grant funding, and that’s something that I’ve taken on our universities on and challenged them to provide more transparency,” Langworthy said. “When 40% of NIH research grants can be spent on indirect costs, the mind wanders.”
Langworthy and other Republicans argue that large percentages of grants should not be subsidizing things like administrative salaries or other overhead expenses.
“What we don’t want to see is these massive NIH grants having 40% of them siphoned off to supplement the operating expenditures of existing taxpayer-funded universities,” he added.
Still, advocates like Miller say the stakes couldn’t be higher.
“You’re going to see a lot of great doctors and researchers leaving NCI,” she said. “And I fear we’ll lose people who could have found the cure.”
