The National Institutes of Health will no longer be funding work on the health effects of climate change, according to internal records reviewed by ProPublica.
The guidance, which was distributed to several staffers last week, comes on the back of multiple new directives to cut off NIH funding to grants that are focused on subjects that are viewed as conflicting with the Trump administration’s priorities, such as gender identity, LGBTQ+ issues, vaccine hesitancy, and diversity, equity and inclusion.
While it’s unclear whether the climate guidance will impact active grants and lead to funding terminations, the directive appears to halt opportunities for future funding of studies or academic programs focused on the health effects of climate change.
“This is an administration where industry voices rule and prevail,” said Dr. Lisa Patel, executive director of The Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, a coalition of medical professionals that raises awareness about the health effects of climate change. “This is an agenda item for the fossil fuel industry, and this administration is doing what the fossil fuel industry wants.”
She called the new guidance “catastrophic” and said it would have a “devastating” impact on much-needed research.
As extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, heat waves, wildfires and floods, continue to intensify and become more frequent, researchers are increasingly examining the impact climate change has on public health. The NIH, which provides billions of dollars annually for biomedical research across the country, has funded hundreds of grants and programs in recent years devoted to researching this issue.
In 2021, under President Joe Biden, the agency launched the Climate Change and Health Initiative to further coordinate and encourage greater research and training. The initiative received $40 million in congressional appropriations for research in both 2023 and 2024. However, last month, the initiative and two other similar NIH programs devoted to climate change and health were dismantled, according to reporting from Mother Jones.
The latest directive cuts all future climate change and health funding across the agency, regardless of its connection to the previously canceled initiative.
In response to ProPublica’s questions about the directive, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said the agency “is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities.”
“At HHS, we are dedicated to restoring our agencies to their tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science,” the spokesperson said. “As we begin to Make America Healthy Again, it’s important to prioritize research that directly affects the health of Americans. We will leave no stone unturned in identifying the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic as part of our mission to Make America Healthy Again.”
Climate and health researchers faced hostility during President Donald Trump’s first administration but were able to continue their work, according to Linda Birnbaum, a former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences who served as a federal scientist for four decades.
“Under Trump One, we scratched the word ‘change’ from our work and talked about ‘climate’ and ‘health,’ and that was acceptable,” she said. “If NIH doesn’t study the health impacts of climate, we are not going to be able to prevent some of those health impacts, and we aren’t going to be able to find ways to deal with them.”
In a report from December, the NIH listed numerous ongoing climate change and health projects that it was funding, including research to examine the health impacts of the Maui wildfires in Hawaii, develop models to predict dengue virus transmission by mosquitos, and study the effect of heat on fertility and reproductive functions. The Trump administration has since pulled the report offline.
“We can see with our own eyes how extreme heat and extreme weather are harming people’s health,” said Veena Singla, an adjunct assistant professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.
The new NIH directive follows the Trump administration’s broader agenda to gut efforts to document and address climate change. Trump has paused billions of dollars of spending on climate-related causes. He has also issued executive orders aimed at increasing the production of fossil fuels and scaling back the government’s efforts to address climate change.
His administration is also considering a plan to eliminate the scientific research office of the Environmental Protection Agency, which could result in the firing of more than 1,000 scientists, according to The New York Times. Some scientists in that office have also been researching the health effects of climate change, investigating such questions as how rising temperatures might change the body’s response to air pollution and how climate change impacts the amount of toxic chemicals in air and water.
The NIH and White House did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment. The EPA did not answer questions about whether research on climate change and health will continue at the agency. In an emailed response to questions from ProPublica, the EPA press office wrote that “The Trump EPA is dedicated to being led by our commitment to the agency’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment, unlike Biden EPA appointees with major ethical issues that were beholden to radical stakeholder groups.”
Trump’s perspective on climate change appears to be at odds with that of his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who spent decades as an environmental attorney. “I believe the climate crisis is real, that humans are causing it, that it’s existential,” he said in an interview last year. HHS did not respond to ProPublica’s questions on the secretary’s views.
However, Patel told ProPublica that she did not expect the new health secretary, whose mandate oversees the NIH, to support views that were at odds with the administration’s agenda.
“What we can readily see, from the things that RFK Jr. is allowing to happen and unwilling to weigh in on, he is not going to be an anti-industry voice,” she said. “He is not there to follow the best science.”
