The Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project (SCIMaP) has created an interactive map that reveals the projected nationwide impacts of the Trump administration’s cuts to NIH funding for crucial health research, including on cancer, diabetes, dementia and more. The White House has proposed budget cuts to NIH research of $18 billion compared to FY 2024. Those cuts are projected to cause more than $46 billion in lost economic activity, given that every dollar of NIH support translates to 2.5 dollars of economic activity.
JOSHUA S. WEITZ; [email protected]
Weitz is Professor and Clark Leadership Chair in data analytics at the University of Maryland. He is part of SCIMaP’s analysis team. SCIMaP, which put out its first release in March 2025, aims to communicate and visualize the impacts of ongoing cuts to American research and science institutions in a way that is accessible to the public.
Weitz told the Institute for Public Accuracy: “Researchers like myself and others receive money to fund personnel as well as facilities that are critical to do research. The White House has proposed massive cuts to the NIH’s indirect cost rate [the money that NIH earmarks for infrastructure costs like facilities, maintenance and security]. They claim that these cuts are targeted, but they aren’t. They would impact everyone: public and private universities; blue, purple, and red states. So far, reporting has focused on universities like Columbia, Harvard and Northeastern. We are trying to communicate a story that is national and local in scope at the same time.
“These cuts are massive, but many people remain unaware of how their communities are being impacted. Universities and research institutes are often the largest employers in their area and support a whole economic pipeline: restaurants, retail, the supply chain that makes research happen. This map is our effort to project forward the economic repercussions. The university is only the most direct [piece of things], but the cuts feed into a larger ecosystem. The NIH, for instance, might be based nearby. But the NIH has a significant apparatus to draw on experts across the country to evaluate proposals and hand out grants, on a very competitive basis, across the U.S. When $1 million goes to a particular university over a number of years, that $1 million funds personnel, including PhD students, postdocs who are analyzing data en route to become scientists, physician-scientists, professors, full-time staff scientists, lab techs, engineers, people helping with maintaining animal care, project managers, and all the financial and administrative staff that do support work. That’s just the first layer. There will be reductions in payroll. There will be layoffs. When the rate of research slows down, so does consumption. Individuals who aren’t getting paid won’t be using retail or restaurants or buying equipment for their research.
“You quickly realize that $18 billion in proposed cuts is pulling out $40 billion from the U.S. economy––not just in Bethesda, but in small towns with a university, regional hubs, and major cities. These impacts will be large, they will be distributed nationally, and they certainly will be distributed in red, purple, and blue districts… Most of the money granted to an institution stays around that institution, but it also gets distributed. This platform accounts for people where they live and work to show the realistic impacts nationwide.
“Reporting on this issue has been accurate but limited, and it has misinterpreted the ways that economic impacts actually flow when money doesn’t arrive at a research institute, hospital, or university after federal budget cuts. A narrative took hold that these were hits to institutions in particular. No––these are hits to our communities. The problem with that narrative frame is that it’s about institutions, so we focus on the biggest hits, like Harvard. But this isn’t about Harvard. It’s about places like Penn State and the University of Maryland. It’s not just a targeted attack on perceived elite, private institutions.
“This is a massive near-term and long-term economic and leadership issue. It’s not a sleeper issue. If successful, the White House’s budget cuts will undermine America’s network of research and have disastrous consequences to the ability of the U.S. to be a world leader in medical research and science.”