Research funding from the National Institutes of Health drove close to $2.5 billion in economic activity in Missouri and Kansas last year and accounted for more than 10,000 jobs in the two states.
That’s despite a monthslong stretch after the Trump administration came into office when thousands of federal grants across the country were stalled or canceled, leaving scientists uncertain about whether their work could continue.
By the year’s end, the NIH had invested $36.58 billion in research grants nationwide, compared to $36.94 billion the previous year, according to a new report from United for Medical Research, a coalition of research institutions, health advocates and private industry.
Organizations in Kansas received a combined $143 million in NIH grants 2025, down 1.7% from 2024. And Missouri organizations brought in $882 million, a 2.2% decline.
Though total funding remained relatively stable, the report found a significant dip in the number of grants awarded. In 2025, NIH funded 58,795 grants nationwide — 5,564 fewer than the previous year. Missouri organizations received 1,432, or 121 fewer than 2024, while Kansas organizations received 237, or 27 fewer.
The University of Kansas Medical Center received 68% of all NIH grants in Kansas and claimed 71% of NIH funding in the state. In Missouri, Washington University in St. Louis took in 79% of the NIH grants awarded in the state and claimed 82% of the state’s NIH funding.
The reason for the decline in funded grants rests with a change in how NIH allocated funds, the group said. Historically, the agency gave out funding for multiyear grants one year at a time. But last year it began allocating the entire grant award up front.
That approach helped the agency get more money out the door and meet congressional demands that appropriated dollars be spent. But it meant money couldn’t be spread around as much.
“That is not good for researchers — particularly young, early career researchers — and it’s not good for research,” Caitlin Leach, United for Medical Research’s president, said in an emailed response to questions. “By essentially holding that money in reserve, a lot of promising research and researchers are not being funded.”
Leach said “guardrails” to help prevent the same thing from happening in the current budget year were included in the fiscal year 2026 budget bill, making her hopeful the situation will improve.
Even with the decline in grants awarded, NIH-funded research still generated $94.15 billion in new economic activity nationwide, Leach’s organization said. That amounts to a return of $2.57 for each $1 invested.
It’s an investment worth making, Leach said, especially as biomedical research gets more funding in other countries around the world.
“America needs to be investing more, not less,” Leach said, “and ensuring that our biomedical innovation ecosystem is working on behalf of Americans’ health and America’s economy.”
Last year many research scientists were left in limbo waiting for grant funding that sometimes never came through. Grant Witness, a scientist-run project tracking the fate of research grants since the second Trump administration took office, said 5,418 NIH grants have been stalled or canceled at some point along with 1,996 grants issued by the National Science Foundation.
Sometimes funding was delayed because language didn’t comply with political dictates and flagged words like “equity,” “climate” and “gender” had to be scrubbed before funding was awarded. That happened to the KU Cancer Center.
In other cases, the topic of research was determined to be incongruous with the Trump administration’s priorities, so funding was canceled.
Meanwhile, major staffing reductions at federal grant-making agencies also slowed the flow of money last year. The grant review process, a critical step required before new grants are funded, at times ground to a halt, while grants that had already been reviewed and rated languished.
That’s what happened to Dr. Jason Stubbs, a nephrologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center. After a review gave his grant application high marks, he was forced to scale back research while he waited to learn whether the NIH funding would come through.
Stubbs, who is looking at how dietary phosphate affects kidney disease, had to wait weeks longer than was typical in the past. He finally got word that his grant had been funded.
But other researchers are still waiting. According to recent reporting, NIH grants — especially new awards and competitive renewals — are proceeding at a slower pace than usual again this year.
After a slow start last year, NIH awarded $882.1 million in grants to Missouri institutions, compared to $901.6 million in 2024. In Kansas, institutions got $143.2 million last year, compared to $140.7 million the year before.
Kansas was among the 20 states with the greatest decrease in the number of grants awarded, going from 264 awards in 2024 to 237 last year. The University of Kansas Medical Center, the state’s biggest recipient of NIH grants, received 161 grants in 2025, compared with 176 the previous year.
United for Medical Research estimated that NIH research in Missouri created more than 8,000 jobs and supported almost $2.1 billion in economic activity. In Kansas, the group said NIH investments created more than 1,600 jobs, while generating $396 million in economic activity.
