California Fights Back: State Proposes Its Own NIH as Trump Threatens Research Funding

As the Trump administration moves to slash federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a California lawmaker is leading the charge to ensure the state’s medical research doesn’t suffer. The proposal? A California-funded version of the NIH that would keep life-saving research projects alive, even if Washington pulls the plug.

The move reflects growing concerns that budget cuts could cripple the state’s world-renowned research institutions, which rely on billions of dollars in NIH grants to develop groundbreaking treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s, and other serious diseases.

Why NIH Funding Matters

Research that results in novel medications, therapies, and medical advancements is funded by the NIH, which serves as the foundation for medical research in the United States. Major institutions like UCLA, UC Berkeley, and Stanford rely on the more than $4 billion in NIH funds that California alone receives year to pay scientists and finance research labs.

However, the Trump administration has suggested significant budget cutbacks to the NIH, which would include lowering payments for necessary research expenses like technological support and lab upkeep. These changes, according to critics, may slow down or even stop important research, depriving scientists and medical professionals of the tools they need to discover novel treatments.

California’s Plan: A State-Funded NIH

To counteract the potential funding crisis, California lawmakers are considering creating a state-funded agency modeled after the NIH. This new institution would provide grants to researchers working on everything from cancer treatments to cutting-edge gene therapy, ensuring that progress continues no matter what happens at the federal level.

Supporters of the plan say California has the economic strength to invest in its own medical research, just as it has done with other major initiatives like the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which funds stem cell research.

“We can’t afford to wait and see what happens in Washington,” said one state legislator backing the proposal. “If Trump’s budget cuts go through, we need to make sure our scientists and doctors have the funding they need to keep making life-saving discoveries.”

Legal Battles Over Federal Cuts

California isn’t just considering a state-funded NIH—it’s also fighting back in court. The state has joined a coalition of 22 other states in suing the Trump administration over the proposed funding cuts, arguing that they would cause widespread harm to public health.

Attorney General Rob Bonta has already secured a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the administration from enforcing the cuts. This legal battle is expected to continue, with California officials determined to protect the flow of research funding.

In addition to the lawsuit, California’s congressional representatives have been pushing back against the cuts, urging federal officials to reconsider their plans. Lawmakers like Linda T. Sánchez and Scott Peters have warned that slashing research funding could set back medical progress by decades.

What This Means for Scientists and Patients

If the federal cuts go through, the impact could be devastating for research institutions across California. Labs that rely on NIH grants could be forced to lay off researchers, halt clinical trials, and abandon promising studies.

One example is UC Berkeley’s Innovative Genomics Institute, led by Nobel Prize-winning scientist Jennifer Doudna. Her team has been making major strides in gene-editing technology, but without stable funding, projects aimed at treating conditions like ALS and dementia could be put on hold.

Patients waiting for new treatments would also feel the effects. Many cutting-edge therapies are developed through NIH-funded research, and delays in funding could mean delays in bringing new treatments to the public.

Could This Be a Model for Other States?

California has a history of stepping up when federal policies threaten scientific progress. The state already funds major research initiatives, including its pioneering stem cell research program, and has often positioned itself as a leader in innovation.

If the state moves forward with its own version of the NIH, it could inspire other states to take similar action, creating a network of state-funded research agencies that operate independently of federal funding.

For now, California’s medical community is watching closely, hoping that state leaders will step in to protect the future of scientific discovery. With so much at stake, lawmakers are under pressure to act quickly and ensure that researchers have the support they need—no matter what happens in Washington.