European universities have long benefited from collaborations with their US counterparts, particularly through funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest public funder of biomedical research. However, recent policy shifts in the United States are prompting urgent discussions within the higher education sector about whether pursuing NIH grants remains viable. At the recent EARMA 2026 conference in Utrecht, US experts directly questioned if the risks now outweigh the rewards for EU institutions.

These developments come amid a broader landscape of administrative hurdles, funding uncertainties, and geopolitical tensions that could disrupt transatlantic research partnerships. For university administrators, researchers, and research managers across Europe—from the University of Cambridge in the UK to Heidelberg University in Germany—the stakes are high. NIH subawards, once a straightforward mechanism for international collaboration, are now subject to stringent restrictions that demand careful strategic reassessment.

The Strategic Importance of NIH Funding to EU Higher Education

NIH funding has been a cornerstone for many European universities, especially in fields like oncology, neuroscience, infectious diseases, and genomics. In 2024 alone, the NIH allocated approximately $69 million across 125 projects involving European institutions, supporting cutting-edge work that complements domestic programs like Horizon Europe. This influx not only bolsters lab capacities but also fosters knowledge exchange, joint publications, and career mobility for early-career researchers.

For mid-sized universities in countries such as the Netherlands, Spain, and Denmark, NIH grants represent a critical diversification from EU-centric funding. Take Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam: researchers there rely on multiple NIH awards for virology studies, highlighting how these funds enable access to unique US datasets and clinical cohorts. Yet, this dependence exposes vulnerabilities when US policies shift abruptly.

Unpacking the NIH Foreign Subaward Policy Overhaul

The catalyst for concern is NIH Notice NOT-OD-25-104, issued on May 1, 2025, which fundamentally alters how foreign entities—including EU universities—can receive funds. Previously, US principal investigators (PIs) could issue subawards to European partners under their primary grant. Now, such 'nested' subawards are prohibited for all new, renewal, or continuation awards.

Under the new structure, anticipated fully by September 30, 2025, foreign collaborators must secure independent 'linked' awards directly from NIH. This requires separate applications, expanded documentation (from 12 to 30 pages in some cases), and rigorous compliance with US data-sharing mandates, intellectual property rules, and biosecurity checks. Prior approval for adding foreign components mid-grant is also barred.

This step-by-step change aims to enhance transparency and national security by improving Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting on subawards over $30,000. However, critics argue it stems from broader US concerns over foreign influence, particularly from China, inadvertently ensnaring benign EU partnerships.

Immediate Disruptions to Ongoing EU-US Projects

The policy's rollout has already halted progress on dozens of European-led initiatives. A STAT survey of 989 NIH-funded US scientists in early 2026 revealed 25% experienced significant impacts, with 45% affected to some degree. European partners report hiring freezes, staff layoffs, and scope reductions.

• Rare disease data analysis at a UK university: Post-award funding paused, delaying key hires.
• High-performance brain imaging collaboration between Spain's National Research Council and Cornell University: Uncertainty over subaward conversion.
• Linguistics study at Aarhus University on autism: Anticipated paperwork explosion under new PF5 mechanism.

Infectious disease trials in low-resource settings, often involving EU expertise, face ethical dilemmas like patient safety if prematurely terminated. Bridge funding from university reserves or philanthropies like the Wellcome Trust has kept some afloat, but not all.

Administrative Nightmares and Compliance Costs

Beyond funding delays, the bureaucratic load is immense. EU universities must now navigate US-specific requirements: full lab notebook disclosures, raw data uploads to NIH repositories, and adherence to clinical trial regs that clash with GDPR. One Rotterdam biostatistician noted, 'Future plans with US partners are off the table—too much red tape.'

Research managers at institutions like the German Cancer Research Center report doubled grant-writing time and legal consultations to reconcile EU IPR laws with NIH terms. Smaller labs, lacking dedicated admin support, are hit hardest, potentially widening the gap between elite (e.g., EMBL) and regional universities.

Political Volatility and Budget Pressures

Layered on policy changes are Trump administration moves: proposed 40% NIH budget cuts, DEI grant freezes (affecting ~1,200 staff layoffs), and overhead rate caps. European grantees fear reciprocal Horizon Europe restrictions, as the EU's open access to US researchers (e.g., €26.4M in health projects) was quid pro quo.

Stefan Pfister of DKFZ worries about renewal uncertainties: 'Post-award cancellations upend long-term planning.' With NIH's $48B budget under scrutiny, EU dependency—$62M+ annually—feels precarious amid US 'America First' priorities.

Insights from EARMA 2026: Expert Warnings

At EARMA 2026 (May 5-7, Utrecht), US grant experts urged EU research managers to reassess NIH pursuits. Sessions highlighted 'capricious' changes risking project sabotage. Aurora Alliance's Marie Jadrníčková echoed calls for diversified portfolios, emphasizing European Universities Initiative resilience.

Delegates from 30+ countries discussed hedging via national funders (e.g., DFG Germany, NWO Netherlands) and ERC Starting Grants, which prioritize investigator-driven science without subaward pitfalls.

Viable Alternatives: Strengthening EU-Led Funding

Europe boasts robust options. Horizon Europe's €95.5B budget remains open to US partners, funding collaborative health clusters. ERC grants (€16B for 2021-2027) offer flexibility for frontier research, while Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) support mobility sans US strings.Explore Horizon opportunities

• National agencies: France's ANR, UK's UKRI—stable, less geopolitically volatile.
• Philanthropy: Wellcome Trust (€1B+ annually), Cancer Research UK.
• Industry: Pharma giants like Novartis, AstraZeneca co-fund EU trials.

Universities like Heidelberg are pivoting to EIC Pathfinder for deep-tech biomed.

Strategic Recommendations for European Universities

To mitigate risks:

1. Audit portfolios: Map NIH exposure; prioritize direct awards over subs.
2. Build buffers: Internal seed funds for transitions.
3. Foster bilateral ties: EU-US memoranda bypassing NIH.
4. Enhance admin capacity: Train on PF5 apps, GDPR-NIH alignments.
5. Diversify: Target 20-30% non-EU funding via ERC/MSCA.

LERU and EUA advocate joint lobbying for stable transatlantic pacts.

Photo by 𝕡𝕒𝕨𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕡𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕤 on Unsplash

Long-Term Outlook for Transatlantic Ties

While short-term pain looms, opportunity arises for EU leadership in biomed. With US turmoil, Europe can attract 'brain gain'—US PIs eyeing stable Horizon funds. Yet, without policy stabilization, collaborations may fragment, slowing global health advances like pandemic preparedness.

University leaders must act decisively: treat NIH as high-risk/high-reward, not default. By embracing alternatives and agility, EU higher education can turn risks into resilience. Check NIH policy updates regularly.