NIH scientists publish declaration criticizing Trump’s deep cuts in public health research

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health released a rare internal protest letter known as the “Bethesda Declaration” on Monday to publicly condemn the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to biomedical research. The declaration, signed by 92 current and former NIH staff members and endorsed anonymously by 250 others, accuses NIH leadership of political interference, abrupt grant terminations and undermining the agency’s core mission of safeguarding public health.

The declaration outlines a sharp critique of budget reductions and administrative decisions that scientists say have crippled the agency’s research capabilities. Among the most significant allegations are the abrupt termination of more than 2,100 research grants, valued between $9.5 billion and $12 billion. These grants included clinical trials and long-term projects deemed essential for public health innovation. Contracts worth an additional $2.6 billion were reportedly suspended without warning, forcing several trials to stop mid-course — including tuberculosis treatment studies in Haiti — raising ethical concerns about participant safety.

The letter, distributed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and multiple congressional oversight committees, claims the agency is abandoning its commitment to evidence-based research. It accuses leadership of placing political pressure over scientific integrity.

“The life-and-death nature of our work demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted,” the declaration states. “We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources. Many have raised these concerns to NIH leadership, yet we remain pressured to implement harmful measures. Today, we come directly to you.”

The public release of the letter comes amid broader tensions within federal science agencies under the Trump administration. The NIH is facing proposed budget cuts of up to 40% for fiscal year 2026 — equating to an $18 billion reduction — while the Department of Health and Human Services is reportedly moving ahead with plans to cut tens of thousands of jobs across agencies including the CDC and FDA. These developments have fueled widespread concern about the country’s ability to respond to future health emergencies and maintain global leadership in science.

The declaration details what it calls a “culture of fear and suppression,” in which staff feel unable to question politically driven decisions without risking their careers. The authors argue that halting clinical trials at 80% completion represents not only a loss of scientific opportunity but also a profound waste of taxpayer money. “Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million — it wastes $4 million,” the letter states.

Bhattacharya, a Trump appointee and co-author of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, responded by calling the letter “productive” but said it misrepresented the agency’s strategic direction. He defended the consolidation of programs and reallocation of funds, arguing that reforms were necessary to modernize NIH operations and align them with national priorities.

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) has called for hearings to examine the impact of NIH cuts and the agency’s management practices. Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before a Senate committee later this week and the letter’s revelations are expected to feature prominently in questioning.

The Bethesda Declaration has also drawn support from the broader scientific community, with over 40 scientists from outside the NIH, including 21 Nobel laureates, signing a separate letter supporting the declaration. In addition, more than 500 individuals signed the letter Monday morning after the document was made public.

In March, more than 1,900 scientists signed another open letter warning that deep federal cuts would cripple the nation’s research infrastructure, accelerate brain drain and compromise future public health responses. Legal challenges have already succeeded in blocking certain HHS initiatives — including a broad freeze on grants — suggesting that further pushback may come through the courts.