BETHESDA, MD – Chanting “No kings, just vaccines!” roughly a thousand demonstrators gathered outside the National Institutes of Health (NIH) headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, on Saturday, protesting proposed cuts to medical research and expressing broader concerns about the direction of science under the current administration. The rally, part of a larger wave of “No Kings” protests occurring across the United States and internationally, underscored a growing anxiety among scientists and healthcare advocates about the future of publicly funded research.
The demonstration follows a year of significant upheaval at the NIH, marked by substantial reductions in multi-year funding and the termination of numerous grants, particularly those focused on gender and racial disparities in health. According to reporting by Roll Call on Friday, the White House is now poised to cut the NIH’s budget by 20%, a move that would exacerbate existing concerns about the agency’s ability to pursue critical research. Roll Call reported the proposed cuts come nearly a year after layoffs impacted several health agencies.
The protest wasn’t simply about numbers on a budget sheet; it was deeply personal for many attendees. Bill Bien, a lymphoma survivor, shared his story with the crowd, describing his diagnosis a year ago as feeling like “trying to climb a mountain, and I couldn’t breathe.” He credited breakthroughs in lymphoma research, decades in the making at institutions like the National Cancer Institute, with saving his life. “Ten years ago, this would have been a death sentence,” Bien said, his voice resonating with emotion. “You create fundamental shifts, and now lymphomas are cured.”
Bien’s experience highlighted the tangible impact of NIH-funded research, a point repeatedly emphasized by speakers throughout the morning. He urged continued investment in long-term scientific endeavors, emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary teams. “You must persevere,” he implored, “It means so much to so many people you’ll never meet. It will save their lives.” The scene was punctuated by the sound of honking cars and the gentle fall of cherry blossom petals carried by a chilly wind.
A Broad Coalition Voices Concerns
The “No Kings” protests, whereas initially focused on broader political issues, quickly became a focal point for concerns within the scientific community. Saturday’s demonstration at the NIH reflected this convergence, with speakers addressing a range of issues beyond research funding. Protesters voiced opposition to restrictive immigration policies, limitations on transgender healthcare access, and U.S. Foreign policy regarding Iran and Cuba. The event also served as a food drive to support employees of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and other federal workers affected by recent government shutdowns.
The diverse range of concerns underscored a shared belief among attendees that the current administration’s policies represent a threat to both scientific progress and social justice. The protest wasn’t solely about defending research funding; it was about defending the principles of evidence-based policymaking and equitable access to healthcare.
The Changing Landscape of Scientific Leadership
A central theme of the protest was criticism of the leadership at the NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Speakers specifically called out Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of HHS, and Jay Bhattacharya, the director of the NIH, accusing them of overseeing a “gutting” of the agency. CPAC announced Bhattacharya’s participation in the 2026 conference.
Nina Friedman, a doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland whose research is supported by the NIH, expressed concern about the influence of figures like Kennedy and Bhattacharya. “If we don’t take the microphone, RFK Jr and Jay Bhattacharya will have the airwaves,” she said, highlighting the demand for scientists to actively engage in public discourse.
The concerns extend beyond budgetary cuts to the very direction of research priorities. Michael Green, an early-career fellow who received an NIH fellowship in August 2024 for research on discrimination in healthcare, saw his funding terminated in 2025 as part of broader cuts targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. “I study trust for a living… Trust is not found by going on a podcast,” Green stated, referencing Bhattacharya’s frequent appearances on conservative media outlets. He characterized the current leadership as attempting to “run science like a king, deciding which research is acceptable based on political ideology rather than scientific merit.”
Resistance and Resilience Within the NIH
The cuts and policy shifts haven’t been met with silence from within the NIH. Jeanne Marrazzo, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and current CEO of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, spoke about the resistance she and other institute leaders faced when attempting to push back against the imposed cuts. “We were never explicitly told why we were placed on administrative leave almost exactly a year ago,” Marrazzo said. “I was never explicitly told why I was ultimately fired six months later. But it’s very hard to imagine that our resistance did not play a role.”
Despite her departure, Marrazzo remains committed to supporting vital research. “I am ready for this. I am all in,” she declared, referencing the rally’s slogan, “No (Shadow) Kings,” and adding, “It can be dimmed or redirected by political will or malign intent… but eventually the light reaches where it needs to move.”
Anna Culbertson, co-founder of 27 UNIHTED, a non-profit organization supporting former NIH workers, led the crowd in reciting the oath of office for government employees: “I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The crowd echoed her words, emphasizing their commitment to upholding the principles of public service.
The proposed 20% budget cut to the NIH, if enacted, would have far-reaching consequences for medical research and public health. The agency funds research across a wide spectrum of diseases and conditions, from cancer and heart disease to infectious diseases and mental health. Reductions in funding could lead to delays in critical discoveries, hinder the development of new treatments, and ultimately jeopardize public health. The next key date to watch is the release of the full budget proposal to Congress, expected in the coming weeks, which will provide a more detailed breakdown of the proposed cuts and their potential impact.
This demonstration serves as a powerful reminder of the vital role that scientific research plays in society and the importance of defending it from political interference. The voices raised outside the NIH on Saturday represent a growing movement of scientists, healthcare advocates, and concerned citizens determined to ensure that evidence-based policymaking remains at the forefront of public health decisions.
Disclaimer: This article provides information about scientific research and public health policy. It’s not intended to provide medical or financial advice. Consult with a qualified professional for personalized guidance.
What are your thoughts on the proposed cuts to NIH funding? Share your comments below and assist spread awareness by sharing this article.
