|
RNA vaccine technology has proven its value well beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, and some of its most important applications may still lie ahead. Most seasonal influenza vaccines are produced in eggs, a manufacturing process that requires months of lead time and cannot rapidly adapt when there is antigenic mismatch between vaccine composition and the dominant circulating strain. In the 2025-26 season, H3N2 is the dominant circulating strain, it is poorly matched to this year's egg-based split-virion vaccine, and cases and hospitalizations are on track to exceed the previous year's approximately 40,000 deaths (1). RNA vaccine platforms can be updated far more quickly to match circulating strains. And yet, the federal government has chosen this moment to cut NIH funding for exactly this kind of research.
Chandrabhatla and colleagues recently catalogued this investment in a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2026 (2). Querying NIH RePORTER, they identified 178 active RNA vaccine grants spanning 1997 to 2025, totaling $1.65 billion in funding. R01s were the most common grant type (67 grants; $139 million). The top three areas of study were viruses (75 grants; approximately $968 million), RNA technology broadly (46 grants; approximately $512 million), and cancer (19 grants; approximately $75 million). Among the 75 viral vaccine grants, COVID-19 accounted for 29 grants and approximately $510 million, and HIV accounted for 24 grants and approximately $173 million. Influenza represented 6 grants, with additional grants covering flaviviruses, paramyxoviruses, phenuiviruses, herpesviruses, and coronaviruses. NIAID was the top awarding institute (110 grants; $1.08 billion). The portfolio generated 2,342 publications and 149,033 citations, with 10% classified as clinical trials or practice guidelines and 35% cited in clinical trials or practice guidelines. Eighteen grants were awarded to 15 small businesses, reflecting the downstream commercial value of this work.
In August 2025, HHS Secretary Kennedy announced the termination of 22 grants worth nearly $500 million for mRNA vaccine research because they "fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu" (3). This flawed rationale understates their effectiveness since these vaccines significantly reduce risk of severe disease and mortality even in the event of breakthrough infections. Bhattacharya separately wrote in the Washington Post that the technology "failed to earn the public's trust." A Nature editorial published that same month noted the irony: this is the same technology Trump's first administration funded through Operation Warp Speed, an $18 billion program that delivered COVID-19 vaccines in record time (4). Kennedy’s and Bhattacharya’s comments also misrepresent the scope of what is being cut. As Kelvin and Rasmussen argue in their invited commentary, the portfolio of terminated grants extends well beyond COVID-19 to influenza, HIV, cancer, and a wide range of other pathogens and diseases (1). Among the terminated grants was research on seasonal and universal influenza vaccines, work that could directly address the kind of antigenic mismatch driving this season's severe flu season, as well as grants targeting HIV. While not directly affected, cancer therapy development, where RNA platforms have shown considerable promise in early clinical trials, could suffer long-term collateral damage from these cuts targeting infectious diseases. When it comes to the COVID-19 investment specifically, the return is difficult to dismiss: vaccination is estimated to have prevented between 14.4 million deaths based on reported mortality and 19.8 million based on excess mortality estimates during the first year of programs across 185 countries (5), and a more conservative analysis of the 2020-2024 period put the global figure at approximately 2.5 million deaths averted, with a sensitivity range of 1.4 to 4.0 million (6). A US cost-effectiveness analysis projected that COVID-19 vaccines could reduce program costs by up to 60% under high uptake scenarios (6). Against those figures, the approximately $510 million invested in COVID-19 RNA vaccine grants looks modest.
Congressional pushback has been substantial. At a Senate HELP Committee hearing on February 3, 2026, NIH Director Bhattacharya faced bipartisan criticism over grant terminations, clinical trial disruptions, and vaccine policy (7). Committee chair Senator Cassidy (R-LA), a physician, cited the deaths of two unvaccinated children in Texas from measles as a warning about what is at stake. That same day, the President signed the FY26 minibus appropriations package, which gave NIH a $415 million boost to $47.2 billion, rejected the President’s proposed 40% budget cut, preserved all 27 institutes and centers, and blocked the proposed 15% cap on indirect costs. Senate report language also directed NIH to restore HIV vaccine research and training programs that the administration had terminated. In January 2026, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a permanent injunction blocking the indirect cost cap, ruling it violated federal statute. These are meaningful protections. However, they do not restore the 22 terminated grants, and the administration's FY27 budget signals continued pressure on NIH.
Many of the viral grants in this portfolio also target pathogens at the human-animal-environment interface, including influenza virus, flaviviruses, paramyxoviruses, and phenuiviruses, which are central to the One Health framework discussed in the companion article in this issue. The mRNA manufacturing platform can be repurposed to produce other types of vaccines or therapies when not making vaccines against viruses (4), making it particularly well-suited to responding to zoonotic spillover events on the timelines those situations demand.
Cutting this research effectively throws the baby out with the bathwater. The RNA platform represents nearly 30 years of sustained public investment in a technology now expanding into oncology, personalized medicine, and pandemic preparedness. The United States risks forfeiting the return on that investment, and other countries are not making the same choice (4). For ASV members with RNA vaccine-related grants, NIH's appeals process for terminated awards remains available. The peer-reviewed record assembled by Chandrabhatla and colleagues provides a strong evidence base for congressional advocacy, and ASV members are well-positioned to use it. Whether Congress will hold the line in FY27 remains to be seen.
References
- A. A. Kelvin, A. L. Rasmussen, Measuring the Impacts of RNA Vaccine Research and the Consequences of Defunding. JAMA Netw. Open 9, e260032 (2026).
- A. S. Chandrabhatla, A. K. Narahari, K. Jin, B. Mazurek, T. D. Bell, National Institutes of Health Funding for RNA Vaccine Research. JAMA Netw. Open 9, e260046 (2026).
- A. S. for P. Affairs (ASPA), HHS Winds Down mRNA Vaccine Development Under BARDA (2025). https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-winds-down-mrna-development-under-barda.html.
- Cancelling mRNA studies is the highest irresponsibility. Nature 644, 579 (2025).
- O. J. Watson, G. Barnsley, J. Toor, A. B. Hogan, P. Winskill, A. C. Ghani, Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 22, 1293–1302 (2022).
- J. P. A. Ioannidis, A. M. Pezzullo, A. Cristiano, S. Boccia, Global Estimates of Lives and Life-Years Saved by COVID-19 Vaccination During 2020-2024. JAMA Health Forum 6, e252223 (2025).
- Modernizing the National Institutes of Health: Faster Discoveries, More Cures | The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. https://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/modernizing-the-national-institutes-of-health-faster-discoveries-more-cures.
|
