NIH Grant Success Rates Plunge to 20% as Multiyear Funding Squeezes Early-Career Scientists

Multiyear Funding Triggers Steepest Grant Success Decline in a Decade

For early-career scientists, the numbers tell a sobering story. In fiscal year 2025, only about 1 in 5 new or competing NIH R01-equivalent grant proposals were funded—a steep fall from the previous year’s relatively robust 26-27%. The drop, mainly attributed to a controversial policy requiring multiyear grants to be funded upfront with full lump sums, has sent chills through the biomedical research community. With the Senate declining to roll back the policy for 2026, applicants shouldn’t expect relief next cycle—if anything, the squeeze could get tighter.

Why Funding Is Suddenly So Scarce

Traditionally, NIH awards grants year-to-year, reserving money for future commitments while keeping enough for new awards. But a Trump-era directive, implemented broadly in June 2025, now requires certain grants to be paid out in full at the start. The upshot: massive sums are locked away, unavailable for new grants. NIH’s own Office of Extramural Research blog acknowledged that this shift instantly halved funds available for fresh research in the second half of 2025. The data is stark:

• Total funded investigators dropped by nearly 2,000, from 7,720 in FY24 to 5,885 in FY25.
• Early-Stage Investigator success rates crashed from 26% to 19%, despite an 11% surge in applications (6,065 in 2025, up from 5,446).
• Established investigators and at-risk PIs saw their odds drop as well, to 20% and 17% respectively. The total new award count for ESIs fell by nearly 300.

Directors and policymakers have debated the impact, but the numbers reveal a sudden, historic contraction in access.

Early-Career Researchers: A Pinched Pipeline, More Crowded Than Ever

The data reveals a disproportionate impact on new talent. Early-career (ESI) and at-risk investigators, often with the least margin for losing a funding cycle, are competing in a pile-up. Meanwhile, with paylines falling (e.g., the National Cancer Institute planning for a shift from the 7th to the 4th percentile), the odds for even well-reviewed proposals look dim.

The multiyear funding policy doesn’t reduce the total budget—Congress kept NIH’s appropriations flat—but it distorts how and when money is available. As a result, promising projects from newer labs are more likely to face the "not discussed" pile (70% of FY25 applications), and those lucky enough to get triaged may feel growing pressure to resubmit or seek alternative funding.

How Policy Disagreements Are Playing Out in Real Budgets

Last winter, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya told Congress the funding policy wasn’t solely to blame—even as the NIH’s extramural leadership blog quietly aired the real impact. Researchers like UC Santa Cruz’s Needhi Bhalla lauded increased transparency from NIH, but not everyone agrees that sunlight is enough.

Frontline science bloggers and study section veterans warn of a potential “boom-and-bust” future. As DrugMonkey noted, the shift to multiyear lump sums could keep rates low for years, resulting in more gamesmanship and rejections, ever-tighter paylines, and risk-aversion from reviewers keen to preserve hits for established labs.

What Grant Seekers Need to Do Now

With success rates stuck near 20% (and potentially falling), what’s a Principal Investigator to do?

• Prepare for fierce competition. ESIs and new applicants should expect longer funding timelines—two or more cycles may become the new norm.
• Invest in resubmissions and revisions. Reviewers may be less forgiving, so use every summary statement to refine and reframe your proposal.
• Expand your funding search. Blended portfolios—including foundations, other federal agencies, and state/charitable grants—will be vital for sustainability this year.
• Lean into ESI policies—if you qualify. NIH has signaled plans to shield ESIs where possible, but pay close attention to institute-specific special paylines or funding mechanisms.

Established investigators face a new reality too: With overall award counts shrinking, renewal applications must address stronger reviewer scrutiny and justify ongoing productivity more than ever.

Congress Holds the Line for 2026, but Risks Remain

The Senate attempted to curb the multiyear funding directive in the last budget negotiations, but the final bill kept 2026 funding levels at the current reduced rate. In practice, this means no immediate bounce-back for application success and a continued struggle for new entrants—unless political or NIH leadership winds change direction.

With award rates drifting closer to historical lows that could, some warn, approach 10% for specific institutes, the coming years may fundamentally reshape the investigator workforce. Competing against established PIs (whose rates have also fallen to 19-20%, but who start with stronger networks and track records) will likely exacerbate demographic disparities and threaten ongoing diversity efforts within biomedical research.

For all grant seekers navigating this fraught terrain, keeping a close watch on evolving NIH policies, institute payline updates, and Congressional deliberations is more vital than ever. Those who adapt early—by diversifying applications, sharpening narratives, and pursuing supplementary sources—will be best placed to weather this storm.

As record-high competition meets a compressed funding pool, applicants need every advantage; platforms like Granted AI offer tools and intelligence to help researchers target the right opportunities in a more unforgiving funding climate.