How the Trump Administration’s Cuts Stall Pediatric Brain Cancer Care

By: Muna Nnamani

Photo by Chelsea Stahl / NBC News; Getty Images; Internet Archive

Photo by Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times

In January 2025, the Trump administration initiated a series of actions aimed at freezing or canceling cancer research grants that had been approved by Congress. Research labs across the country are already experiencing layoffs and delayed experiments.

Pediatric brain cancer researchers are among the most impacted. Historically, childhood cancers are extremely underresearched and underfunded, with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) spending just 3.97% of its research funding on childhood cancer research from 2008 to 2017. Now, the President’s fiscal year 2026 budget request for the NCI is $4.53 billion – down $2.69 billion from fiscal year 2025. 

The NCI funds the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium, a network that organizes early-phase clinical trials for children with brain tumors. The Trump Administration has announced that it will stop supporting the network next March. At the same time, Trump plans to double the White House’s investment in an AI-powered research initiative from $50 million to $100 million and has endorsed it as the future of precision treatment for cancers. His administration claims that artificial intelligence can accelerate therapy development by analyzing data collected from pediatric patients nationwide by the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative (CCDI).

While AI has potential for oncology, potential should not come at the cost of what is needed in the present. For children and family members of children currently facing cancer, the immediate loss of support from the PBTC is devastating. Many pediatric cancer centers depend on their trial network. If this consortium is taken away, promising discoveries will stall before they ever reach patients.

Hospitals that rely on the PBTC’s infrastructure are struggling to launch their own studies. The Children’s Hospital Colorado, which had been part of the PBTC network, noted that their brain tumor trials and infrastructure will either be transferred to other institutions or closed prematurely. Families who expected enrollment in trials instead face waitlists or rejections. As the American Cancer Society has warned, undermining the clinical trial system could result in breakthroughs being lost. 

However, the Trump administration claims that cuts to the cancer research infrastructure can be replaced and improved upon by AI. If the new deal goes according to plan, utilizing AI will eventually fine-tune diagnoses and refine treatments, making them less painful for children’s bodies.”

AI has the capacity to positively impact research. Computation tools do help identify promising molecules, match patients to therapies more precisely, and map tumor biology at an impressive scale. However, cancer research is currently at a stage where AI methods are a hope, rather than a promise. AI is not capable of treating a single child on its own or replacing early-phase trials in real children. The data gathered through the CCDI can suggest which drugs work best in a therapy, but there is no system to test them without the PBTC. Investing in future insights while taking away present lifelines is shortsighted and a cruel tradeoff for cancer patients.

The Trump administration is using its investment in AI to distract from the funds it is pulling from the PBTC. This new research initiative has been framed as a reallocation of funds from outdated systems to innovative ones. However, the reality is that lifesaving research methods are being dismantled in favor of less humanized, speculative benefits. Families whose children are suffering today are being asked to sacrifice so that, maybe years later, other children can benefit.

For these families, the future is not after the years it will take to vet this new system. Their future is next month, next scan, the next trial. Without the PBTC, too many of those futures will end too soon. AI’s potential in cancer research is real, but it should complement the existing systems that provide children with access to treatment, not replace them.

The views expressed in this publication are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Rice Journal of Public Policy, its staff, or its Editorial Board.

---