Nearly 5,000 clinical trials, including 1,000 cancer treatment tests, face termination under proposed federal regulations, a new analysis by science advocacy group Stand Up for Science finds. The potential cuts would also affect hundreds of pediatric, veteran health and heart disease trials, according to the report.

The trials are at risk because of a rule proposed by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in May that would give political appointees the final word on federal research grants across agencies—a departure from years of relying on scientific peer review to judge grants’ merits. The proposed rules are aimed to combat “a ‘woke’ policy agenda” and to curb international collaboration, according to a statement published in the Federal Register. The OMB is headed by Russell Vought, the lead architect of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration.

Clinical trials are the final stages for testing new medical treatments and interventions, and they can involve dozens to thousands of volunteer patients, depending on the trial’s aims. A 2025 JAMA Internal Medicine analysis of 383 clinical trials associated with grants terminated by the Trump administration found that as many as 74,000 patients were affected by the cuts.

On supporting science journalism

If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Applying the proposed rules to some 10,000 clinical trials currently being funded by the National Institutes of Health, Stand Up for Science found that nearly half would face termination. Many of these are international in nature or could trip a list of more than 350 “banned words”—phrases that Pen America, a free speech group, reports that federal agencies have either sought to prohibit or limit, according to the new analysis. Words on the list include “abortion,” “solar power” and “vaccines”.

“People’s lives are on the line. These are clinical trials of new drugs and interventions that could change people’s lives,” said Stand Up for Science founder Collette Delawalla in a statement.

“This seems like an analysis that is highly sensitive to the assumptions made by the analyst,” says Vishal Patel, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Assuming using a banned word would inevitably lead to termination might be too extreme, he says: “This might just be a little too crude of an estimate.”

In response to the new report, a Trump administration spokesman told Scientific American: “The Trump Administration will ensure funding goes toward real science instead of promoting a far-left DEI agenda with things like drag shows in Ecuador and transgender experiments on mice. This rule will bring much-needed transparency to the grantmaking process and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.”

The proposed OMB rules have received widespread condemnation from medical and scientific organizations, such as the American Heart Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. These groups see the OMB rules as breaking the compact between the scientific enterprise and federal agencies to deliver research based on peer review by scientists inside and outside the government.

“The OMB proposal to permit political appointees to discontinue funding of ongoing grants at any time, without cause, would have serious adverse consequences for the research enterprise and for patients,” the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote in an article published on Monday. “Can physician–investigators ethically enroll a patient in a trial if ongoing funding for the trial is uncertain?”

The public comment period for the OMB rules ends on July 13, with more than 28,000 comments submitted so far. If implemented, the new rules would take effect by October.

Editor’s Note (6/16/2026): This story is in development and may be updated.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.