The Department of Health and Human Services recently canceled $500 million in funding for vaccine research that it had previously pledged to scientists.
Obviously, the broken promise is a disappointment for those researchers. It also sends a mixed signal to America’s biotech industry, particularly to the small- and mid-size firms that drive a disproportionate share of medical innovation and job creation, that government support for innovative medicines may no longer be reliable. That may, unfortunately, push the innovative companies that have made the United States the global leader in life sciences to take their talent, capital and jobs elsewhere.
HHS’s decision is opposed to the administration’s efforts to support small businesses, foster innovation and spur economic growth.
Multinational giants don’t dominate biotech. Nearly 80 percent of pharmaceutical firms have fewer than 100 employees, and most have fewer than 20. These are lean, high-risk ventures, often betting their survival on a single product.
Losing a major contract can force small firms to freeze hiring, shelve research or move operations abroad. Rival countries are courting biotech firms through favorable policies and long-term investment strategies. If U.S. innovators cannot count on a reliable partner at home, they could take their talents elsewhere.
The European Union, for example, attracted a 400 percent increase in proposals in 2025 from U.S.-based researchers after the European Research Council upped its funding round to attract the world’s best and brightest innovators focusing on critical areas, including preventive vaccine research for breast cancer.
In addition, China has made no secret of its ambition to dominate the biotech industry. In 2024, China registered 7,100 clinical trials, surpassing the United States, and cities such as Beijing and Shanghai had more lab and research space under construction than any other global market. Furthermore, pharmaceutical and medtech patent filings in China have surged 379 percent over the past decade.
HHS justified its decision by citing public mistrust in vaccines based on mRNA technology, but that rationale does not align with reality. Billions of mRNA doses have been administered worldwide under the most intensive safety monitoring in history. While rare side effects warrant continued study, the technology has consistently proven safe and effective.
No other vaccine platform matches mRNA’s speed and scalability in a public health emergency, which is precisely what makes it so critical to efforts to prevent future crises.
The stakes extend far beyond the biotech industry. When outbreaks hit, restaurants, retailers and other businesses bear the brunt of lost foot traffic and shutdowns.
Senior administration officials have spoken at length about the damage caused by COVID-19 shutdowns and government overreach. They’re correct that government missteps exacerbated the economic toll of that pandemic.
However, pathogens, whether man-made or naturally occurring, pose an enormous threat to the economy even if the government’s response to a future pandemic is optimal. A thoughtful preparedness strategy can help prevent outbreaks before they start, safeguarding public health and the broader economy.
Over the past decade, American companies, many of them small and entrepreneurial, have delivered most of the world’s new medicines. That didn’t happen by accident. It happened because policymakers created an environment that rewarded risk, protected innovation and intellectual property, and provided targeted support where gaps existed.
That environment is starting to crack. Promising programs are being scrapped, and some policies have become unpredictable.
The United States still has the talent, the infrastructure and the know-how to lead in biotech. Tax policy has moved in a positive direction, supporting investment and innovation. Still, if we want the next generation of treatments and cures to be created and sustained here, the Department of Health and Human Services must be as supportive of biotech companies as the rest of the government has been toward small businesses in general and other key industries.
That means honoring commitments, backing scientific success, and recognizing that small biotech firms are key to public health and economic growth. If Washington won’t provide such support and stability, others will.