NIH Adviser Woychik Backs MAHA at 2026 Diabetes Meeting as Researchers Protest Funding Cuts
Updated
Updated · STAT · Jun 5
NIH Adviser Woychik Backs MAHA at 2026 Diabetes Meeting as Researchers Protest Funding Cuts
1 articles · Updated · STAT · Jun 5
Summary
Richard Woychik used a keynote at the American Diabetes Association’s 2026 scientific sessions in New Orleans to strongly endorse the Trump administration’s MAHA agenda after NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya canceled a planned appearance.
Pressed by ADA scientific chief Rita Kalyani to explain deep cuts to grants, staff and careers, Woychik said NIH was in a “changing environment,” tied the funding squeeze to Congress and Bhattacharya’s new priorities, and drew repeated applause for the criticism.
Five conference registrants, including editorial author Steven Kahn, were escorted out by police earlier Friday while distributing copies of an April 29 Diabetes Care editorial condemning Trump administration changes to U.S. biomedical research.
Woychik also defended MAHA-linked scrutiny of chronic disease causes, calling for more study of environmental influences, vaccine responses and fluoride research while arguing the agenda aims to produce “gold standard science.”
The 'Make America Healthy Again' plan targets disease prevention. Can it succeed when treating illness is more profitable?
Is the overhaul of NIH's peer review system a necessary step to reduce bias or a threat to scientific freedom?
With NIH awarding fewer but larger grants, which scientific fields will win and which will be left behind?
NIH Funding Cuts, MAHA Policy, and the 2026 Diabetes Crisis: How a 24% Drop in Research Grants Is Reshaping U.S. Biomedical Science
Overview
The 2026 American Diabetes Association conference in New Orleans became a focal point for both scientific progress and heated policy debate. A senior NIH adviser publicly endorsed the 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative, signaling strong federal alignment with new health priorities. However, the mood shifted when the adviser faced loud cheers from researchers criticizing deep funding cuts to biomedical research. This reaction highlighted the community's growing concern over the financial stability of scientific work. The event clearly illustrated the tension between national health policy endorsements and the real-world challenges researchers face due to shrinking federal support.