U.S. research funding cuts change landscape for Canadian universities, researchers

The Trump administration’s decision to cut funding for research infrastructure has shaken many Canadian researchers who say the aftershocks are expected to resonate for years to come.

Canada’s leading universities are still trying to assess the impact of a series of policy changes from the White House, but it’s clear the landscape for research in both countries has changed in the space of a few weeks.

Canadian university researchers receive a relatively small amount of direct and indirect funding from U.S. agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), but the research relationship between the two countries is closely intertwined, with many projects involving cross-border collaboration.

Some of those ties are now threatened as project funding has been cut or thrown into doubt by new White House directives. In some cases, those orders take specific aim at work on subjects such as climate, the environment, race and gender, and initiatives that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.

Vincent Poitout, director of research and innovation at the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, said he has never seen anything like this moment in his nearly 30-year career.

“It is a major earthquake. Right now it’s trembling pretty badly but I can’t yet assess the damage. I don’t know if everything is going to be destroyed or if some things will stay up and handle the stress,” Dr. Poitout said.

The Trump administration said earlier this month it will cap at 15 per cent the amount of funding in NIH grants that can be spent on what it calls indirect costs, meaning the infrastructure and materials that keep labs functioning.

Many leading U.S. universities spend 50 per cent or more of their grants on those indirect costs, meaning major cuts would be required. The NIH, with a US$47-billion budget, is one of the world’s most important research funding agencies. The funding cap could reduce public research spending by several billion dollars.

The Trump administration has said the measure will improve efficiency and provide cost savings for taxpayers.

The NIH funding decision is being challenged in federal court by 22 state governments and by a group of U.S. universities. A temporary block of the measure, which was announced in early February, was extended following a hearing Friday in a Massachusetts court.

The new cap will not directly affect Canadian recipients, which already have their NIH funding for indirect costs capped at 8 per cent. But it will affect the entire research ecosystem in the two countries.

Dr. Poitout’s lab, which focuses on diabetes research, currently receives NIH funding through a collaboration with a scientist at the University of California, Davis. He said he doesn’t know whether that funding will be renewed in April, which could affect the Canadian staff already assigned to the project.

“That’s what creates a lot of uncertainty for those of us who are NIH-funded,” Dr. Poitout said.

Collaborating with U.S. scientists and winning grants from U.S. funders, which are often larger than those available in Canada, has typically carried prestige in Canadian academia, Dr. Poitout said. Now, when he speaks with colleagues in the U.S. they’re shaken by the way science policy has shifted and concerned about what’s ahead, he said.

“It will affect our American colleagues big-time, and that will indirectly affect the scientific enterprise in general in North America,” Dr. Poitout said.

The amount of direct NIH funding at Canada’s research universities varies but is generally much lower than what is provided by Canada’s main health funding agency, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.

The University of British Columbia, for example, said it received $12.1-million from the NIH in 2023-24, which is about 1.5 per cent of its total research funding. At McGill University, NIH funding represents about 2 per cent of total research funding. The University of Saskatchewan said it holds $3.2-million in NIH direct grants and other funding from 16 active projects. Several more universities and hospital research centres are recipients of NIH funding. In the 2023 fiscal year, there were more than 90 awards in Canada that amounted to roughly US$45-million, according to NIH records.

Elena Bennett, a professor and Canada Research Chair in sustainability science at McGill University, said the rapid policy shift in the U.S. is causing huge uncertainty. A project that she was part of along with American colleagues, the National Nature Assessment, was abruptly shut down last month after an executive order from the White House.

“Closed just like that,” she said. “We got an e-mail and we’re done.”

Prof. Bennett said many graduate students are concerned that jobs in their field will become scarce and are questioning whether the U.S. is a viable place to continue their work, particularly in areas such as the environment. Many connected to research in the U.S. have already lost their jobs, she said.

Chad Gaffield, CEO of the U15 group of large Canadian research universities, said the changes under way in the U.S. make clear the importance of investing in domestic research capacity.

“We have to double down on the strategy that began in the 1990s of building a coast-to-coast research enterprise,” Dr. Gaffield said.