As Washington fights over how much control political appointees should have over which National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants get funded, a simpler number has gone largely unremarked: the agency is issuing fewer of them. Scott Delaney, a former Harvard University epidemiologist, began helping build Grant Witness early last year while facing the loss of his own federal research funding; it has since grown into an independent, grant-by-grant record of federal science funding disruptions. In a recent interview, he noted that NIH's total spending is much closer to last year's levels than its number of awards is. “We’re down 15,000 grants [nationally],” he told the Boston Globe.
Grant Witness’s own published analysis of NIH’s award records, “Agency Pulse: Grantmaking at NIH,” built from the agency’s ExPORTER and RePORTER databases, points in the same direction, although it measures a different baseline than Delaney’s year-over-year figure. As of September 24, NIH had issued 60,924 grant awards in fiscal year 2026, which ends September 30; that count includes new grants, competing renewals, and noncompeting continuations of multiyear projects. It is the lowest total of any of the past six fiscal years at the same point in the calendar, and about 11 percent below the 68,561 awards the agency had issued on average by the same date across fiscal years 2021 through 2025. Total obligations, by contrast, are running about one percent above that five-year average, at roughly $35.2 billion, and are essentially level with fiscal year 2025. Delaney told the Globe that “NIH’s move toward multiyear funding is a major reason” for the drop in grant numbers: The agency now commits several years of funding at once to fewer awards, rather than paying for projects one year at a time.
What the Data Shows: NIH Grant Awards Trail the Five-Year Norm
NIH issued 60,924 grant awards during fiscal year 2026 through September 24—about 11 percent fewer than the 68,561 the agency had issued by the same point, on average, in the previous five fiscal years, even as total obligations ran about one percent above that average.
Adapted from Grant Witness, 2026. Image generated using Claude.
By the Numbers
|
Grant Witness’s figures come with a caveat the group states in its methods notes: NIH “retrospectively changes data” in its ExPORTER datasets because of wrap-up accounting and counts from fiscal year 2025 “seem to not have stabilized yet.” Fiscal year 2026’s curve, which draws on more recent RePORTER data, is likely to shift as well, so this year’s final tally could still tick upward as NIH finalizes its records. It is unlikely to close a gap of more than 7,000 grants, however, and the shortfall lines up with a broader slowdown that left scientists confused and frustrated during last year’s review freeze.
Why It Matters: Fewer Grants Reshape Who Gets to Start a Lab
Fewer awards mean fewer research programs getting off the ground, a squeeze likely to hit early-career investigators seeking their first major grant harder than established labs already holding multiyear awards. It also complicates the economic case NIH’s supporters have made for the agency’s budget: A separate analysis by the advocacy coalition United for Medical Research found that every dollar NIH spent on research funding in fiscal year 2025 generated more than $2.50 in economic activity, a case that depends on grants continuing to flow at something like their historical rate. The slowdown is playing out as institutions across the country adjust to the new reality of NIH funding—and in the wake of a fight in Washington over a proposed commission of political appointees with veto power over NIH grant awards. The White House reportedly shelved that plan on September 23 after bipartisan pushback. Whatever becomes of such proposals, this year’s numbers show that grant decisions can bottleneck long before any formal veto power is ever exercised.
Use of AI Declaration: This article was produced under The Scientist’s AI Editorial Policy.
