Federal Funding Cuts Are Derailing Cancer Disparities Research, Scientists Warn

Cancer Disparities Research Under Threat as Federal Funding Dries Up

Why do some Americans face dramatically higher odds of developing cancer — or dying from it? Rural residents are 18% more likely to die from cancer overall, while Black women face a 35% greater risk of dying from breast cancer compared to white women. These sobering statistics, drawn from a recent report by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), underscore why cancer disparities research matters. Yet the scientists working to close these gaps say their work is now in serious jeopardy.

Survey Reveals Sweeping Impact on Researchers

According to the AACR report, an estimated 93% of cancer disparities researchers surveyed have felt the effects of recent federal policy changes. The survey included 122 participants — professors, scientists, and graduate students — and the findings paint a troubling picture.

• 78% reported being unable to apply for new funding
• 59% said active research projects had been disrupted
• 59% identified the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as the primary source of lost funding

"Many medical trials were stopped in the middle — meaning those patients suddenly didn't receive the treatments they were getting, because the funding stopped," said Mariana Stern, professor of preventive medicine and urology at the Keck School of Medicine at USC and chair of the report committee.

Hundreds of Millions in Grants Canceled

The AACR report references data published in JAMA Oncology showing that during roughly the first half of 2025, the Trump administration canceled 181 grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) — a division of the NIH. Those grants represented more than $317 million in research funding, with many focused specifically on health disparities.

Across the NIH as a whole, thousands of grants were terminated in 2025, according to Grant Witness, a nonprofit organization that monitors changes to scientific agency funding. These cuts followed a January 2025 executive order directing agencies to eliminate what it described as "radical" and "wasteful" DEI-related research.

Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), called the wave of cancellations a mass termination carried out "for simply not moving forward priorities of a new administration." She noted that under previous administrations, grant terminations were considered an extreme last resort — and that nothing approaching this scale had ever occurred before.

Although many terminated NIH grants were later reinstated following court challenges, additional terminations have been reported by the Department of Health and Human Services. Meanwhile, fewer new grants from both the NCI and the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities have been issued in 2025 compared to prior years.

"Completely Unprecedented" — A Researcher's Perspective

Scarlett Lin Gomez, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, has directed the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry — an institution that has received NCI funding for 53 consecutive years.

"We received a cut that was completely unprecedented in the years my registry has been funded through the NCI. We've not had a cut of this magnitude at all — by far," Gomez said.

The consequences have been immediate and personal. Gomez oversees a lab of roughly 50 staff members. Last year, she was forced to lay off approximately seven full-time employees and expects to lose five or six more in the coming year.

"It literally keeps me up at night — the impacts on individuals in my lab," she said. "Everybody's looking at doing the same thing. It's scary to even think about what that's going to look like."

Researchers Forced to Pivot — or Lose Funding Entirely

Some scientists have managed to preserve portions of their work by creatively reframing their research to remain compliant with new federal guidelines. Stern, who studies cancer epidemiology, found herself in this position — sometimes simply rewording grant applications, and in other cases fundamentally shifting her research focus.

One program she previously led provided federal grant-backed training and career development opportunities for students from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds, helping them pursue careers in medicine and research. The rationale was clear: studies show patients experience better outcomes when treated by providers who share their cultural background and language, and that diverse research teams produce faster, more relevant results.

However, under current executive orders, that program can no longer exclusively target minority groups.

"When you look at what percent of Ph.D. or medical graduates belong to racial and ethnic minority communities, you see underrepresentation," Stern said. "We still have a way to go — but with the current political climate, right now, it's impossible to do that."

Progress Made — But Now At Risk

Despite the current challenges, the AACR report acknowledges meaningful progress over recent decades. The mortality gap between Black and white cancer patients, for example, has narrowed significantly — from approximately 34% higher in the 1990s to about 9% higher today. Cancer disparities research played a central role in driving that improvement.

But experts warn that momentum could reverse if funding continues to decline.

"If we take our foot off the pedal of disparities research, there will be more Americans — in rural communities and others not near centers of excellence — who will not do well," said Dr. Robert Winn, cancer center director at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Pennsylvania.

The gaps that remain are stark. The AACR report highlights that veterans face 72% higher odds of developing skin cancer, and rural Americans are 36% more likely to die from lung cancer than their urban counterparts. The report describes these disparities as "among the most profound forms of inequity and injustice."

"If we don't continue to support the research and the clinical care, all the progress we've made over the last 30-plus years — and all the progress to come — is literally at risk," Winn said.

NIH Responds

In response to questions about reductions in cancer disparities funding, the NIH issued the following statement: "NCI identifies cancer disparity research as a priority and recognizes that advancements in the field generate knowledge benefiting all patients across the cancer continuum, from prevention and early detection to treatment and survivorship."

However, for many researchers on the ground, that statement offers little reassurance amid an ongoing and deeply disruptive funding crisis.