Over the past year, red states have been harder hit by reduced National Institutes of Health funding than expected, according to a new report from United for Medical Research. While NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has discussed expanding the spread of funding across the country, moving money away from elite universities on the coasts, many researchers interpreted the Trump administration’s shift as potentially favoring red states. However, the data shows a different pattern.
The report on the economic returns on NIH funding found that every dollar invested by the agency spurs about $2.50 in economic activity. In 2025, 19 states and Washington, D.C., saw decreases of more than 10% in the number of awards they received. Of those 20, 16 voted for Trump in the 2024 elections. This outcome contrasts with earlier discussions about reorienting funding toward red states that have historically received less support from the NIH.
Impact on Research
The impact on research communities has been significant, with researchers already stretched thin being forced to adapt to funding disruptions. Many researchers questioned why red states, despite the administration’s stated goals, experienced particularly sharp declines in awards. The difficulty in terminating existing grants and the mechanics of the funding process appear to have contributed to the uneven distribution of funding cuts.
Earlier reporting examined why red states’ terminated grants were not reinstated and how funding disruptions impacted researchers. Additional coverage explored the difficulty in measuring the economic returns on NIH funding and how that can make it challenging for advocates to communicate the impact of disruptions at the agency.
This article is an AI-assisted summary. All facts and figures are drawn from the original report: https://www.statnews.com/2026/03/11/red-states-hit-hardest-by-reduced-nih-funding/