Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new director of the National Institutes of Health, faced sharp questions from Sen. Susan Collins and other senators Tuesday about a proposed 40% budget reduction at the NIH and other cutbacks that are disrupting biomedical research.

Bhattacharya appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on labor, health and human services and education on Tuesday as the Trump administration has slashed funding for biomedical research and public health.

On Monday, hundreds of NIH scientists signed a letter, called the “Bethesda Declaration,” asking the Trump administration to protect funding for biomedical research.

Also Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raised concerns among public health advocates when he summarily dismissed all 17 members of a key committee that advises the government on approving vaccines. Kennedy, who has falsely questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines, has not said who he would place on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which among other duties, recommends the formulation for the annual influenza vaccine.

At the Senate hearing Tuesday, Bhattacharya largely dodged questions about the Trump administration’s proposals to slash the agency, and the ongoing cuts to research grants.

Collins, who voted to confirm Bhattacharya but has decried NIH cuts, questioned why the Trump administration is requesting a $19 billion cut to the NIH in the 2026 budget, which she said would “undo years of congressional investment.”

“It would delay or stop effective treatments and cures being developed for diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer and Type 1 diabetes,” said Collins, who is chair of the Appropriations Committee. “We also risk falling behind China and other countries that are increasing their investment in biomedical research.”

Bhattacharya said the agency is “fully committed” to making progress on Alzheimer’s and that the 2026 budget will be a “collaboration” between Congress and the White House. But, despite getting a series of questions from Collins and other Republican and Democratic senators, Bhattacharya did not specifically address the rationale for the budget cuts.

Collins has also been speaking out for months against the agency’s moves to cap the amount of money that biomedical researchers can use for indirect costs at no more than 15% of their NIH grants. The indirect costs include overhead expenses, equipment and technical support for scientific research and scientists say the cap would hobble research laboratories in Maine and across the country. The amount that NIH grants pay for indirect costs varies by grant, but averaged 26% of the amount of each grant in 2023.

Collins has also directly lobbied Kennedy to reverse the NIH cap on indirect costs, and Maine has joined other states in a lawsuit to block the cuts.

On Tuesday, Collins said she is still “alarmed and surprised the administration’s budget request (for next year) contains the same 15% cap.”

Bhattacharya said he couldn’t discuss the indirect costs issue because of the pending lawsuit, but that there’s “lots of great possibilities for reform” on how NIH awards grants for research.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, also pointed out that the NIH has so far in 2025 spent $3 billion less on biomedical research compared to the same time in 2024, largely by freezing or denying grant funding on research that Congress previously approved. Much of the denied funding is the subject of pending lawsuits by states and universities that argue the Trump administration is illegally blocking the funding.

The lawsuits argue that the executive branch is required to spend money that Congress approves, and the Trump administration does not have the power to block previously approved funding.

“How is this anything other than sabotaging biomedical research?” Baldwin said.

Bhattacharya did not answer, except to say he’s “happy to work with Congress” on funding issues.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said the cuts to research are disturbing.

“For God’s sake, we lead the world in medical research. Why would we walk away from it?” Durbin said.