The Trump Administration has once again set its sights on the Fogarty International Center, a small but critical institute within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Despite representing just a fraction of NIH’s budget—around $95 million out of nearly $48 billion—Fogarty has outsized influence in strengthening global health systems and U.S. biosecurity alike. Nearly 8,500 individuals from 132 countries have trained through Fogarty programs since 1989, many going on to lead institutions and responses that directly benefit Americans.
But what is at stake is not only outbreak preparedness—it is also America’s soft power and global credibility. By investing modestly in training scientists abroad, Fogarty builds enduring partnerships that extend U.S. influence, cultivate trust, and reinforce leadership in shaping international health policy. Eliminating it would create an opportunity cost: rivals are poised to expand their presence in global health, stepping into a vacuum left by diminished U.S. engagement. This is a direct blow not only to pandemic preparedness, but to the nation’s broader strategic interests.
In April 2025, the Administration abruptly removed Fogarty’s director, Dr. Kathleen Neuzil, an internationally respected infectious disease expert. She was placed on administrative leave less than a year after starting the role, part of a broader shake-up across NIH that has seen multiple institute heads purged. The move coincided with sweeping proposals to slash NIH’s budget by nearly half and consolidate or eliminate several institutes, with Fogarty squarely on the chopping block.
A History of Targeting Fogarty
This is not the first time Fogarty has been in the crosshairs. In 2017, the Trump Administration’s budget proposed eliminating the center entirely, a plan widely criticized by public health leaders worldwide. Writing in The Lancet, a coalition of scientists warned that gutting Fogarty would erode U.S. preparedness against outbreaks like Ebola, influenza, and SARS. They noted that Fogarty-trained scientists played key roles in containing the 2014 Ebola epidemic, and their research shaped guidelines that save lives globally, including in the U.S..
Political Control and Funding Chaos at NIH
The assault on Fogarty is part of a broader political project to reshape NIH. The Administration has repeatedly attempted to impound congressionally appropriated funds, a practice federal watchdogs have deemed illegal. From February to June 2025 alone, NIH awarded $8 billion less for research compared to the previous year, with more than 1,800 grants abruptly terminated. At the same time, political appointees inserted new oversight layers into grantmaking, slowing disbursements and overriding the expertise of career scientists.
In July 2025, the Administration even attempted to pause all new NIH research grants, contracts, and training awards—an unprecedented move later reversed under public pressure. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has petitioned the Supreme Court to allow $783 million in NIH cuts, despite a federal judge’s ruling that the move amounted to unlawful discrimination.
Why This Matters for Health Security and the National Interest
Eliminating Fogarty is not just a bureaucratic reshuffle; it is a direct threat to U.S. national security. Infectious diseases do not respect borders, and local expertise in outbreak detection and containment is our first line of defense. By investing modestly in training scientists abroad, Fogarty prevents diseases from spreading to U.S. shores. As The Lancet emphasized, global health research is not charity but self-protection: research led by Fogarty trainees has saved lives in the U.S. as well as abroad.
There is also a critical soft power dimension. Fogarty fosters scientific partnerships that enhance America’s credibility, trust, and leadership abroad. Graduates often view the U.S. not just as a funder, but as a collaborator invested in global problem-solving. Curtailing these partnerships creates space for geopolitical rivals such as China to step in and expand their influence in global health—an opportunity cost that may erode U.S. leadership in shaping scientific norms, pandemic response protocols, and medical innovation.
The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) has warned that eliminating Fogarty would “devastate U.S. leadership and partnerships in science” and undermine the very programs that protect Americans from pandemics. The cost of losing such influence is not easily measured, but in practical terms, it means slower detection of new threats, weakened collaborations with foreign health agencies, and higher costs when outbreaks inevitably reach U.S. communities.
A Small Investment, Outsized Returns
Fogarty exemplifies the principle that small investments yield big dividends. Alumni include leaders like Soumya Swaminathan, former Chief Scientist of the World Health Organization, and Glenda Gray, head of South Africa’s Medical Research Council, both of whom credit Fogarty with launching their global impact careers. In the U.S., Fogarty has funded hundreds of institutions and fostered collaborations that have advanced HIV, TB, malaria, and cancer research with direct benefits for American patients.
As one former trainee put it, Fogarty was “truly transformative… providing mentorship and global connections that shaped my vision for public health”. Cutting the center now would squander decades of goodwill, training, and infrastructure-building that directly serve U.S. health, national security, and international influence.
The Trump Administration’s campaign to dismantle NIH and eliminate Fogarty reflects a broader hostility toward scientific institutions. But dismantling Fogarty is not simply an internal budget decision. It is a step that compromises U.S. pandemic preparedness, soft power, international credibility, and public health security. Policymakers and stakeholders must recognize what is at stake: the loss of one of America’s most cost-effective and geopolitically strategic tools for keeping global threats from becoming domestic crises.
Sources and Further Reading
Forbes: Small investment, big returns: why this NIH center matters
AP: Trump administration appeals to Supreme Court to allow $783 million research-funding cuts
Science: Chief of NIH’s international center is latest director to lose job under Trump
New York Times: Trump administration illegally withheld N.I.H. funding, watchdog finds
STAT: Layers of political oversight have ‘put sand in the gears’ of NIH grant funding
The Lancet: Closing the NIH Fogarty Center threatens US and global health (2017)