Trump Administration Cuts Funding for Key Disease Research Network

The Trump administration has ended federal funding for the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID) network in 2025, shutting down a research program designed to catch and study new disease outbreaks before they spread. The National Institutes of Health confirmed the decision this week.

The CREID network was built to look for emerging infectious diseases in the parts of the world where new outbreaks are most likely to happen. The program started with 11 research centers that shared roughly $17 million in initial funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

How CREID Worked

The network's researchers developed tools and tests to quickly identify new pathogens when they emerged, while also studying how human immune systems respond to unfamiliar disease agents. The program was coordinated from RTI International in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, with Duke University helping to oversee the whole effort.

One of the centers was the West African Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, based at the University of Texas Medical Branch and led by professor Scott Weaver. The network brought together people from many different fields — biology, physics, social sciences, and engineering — to tackle the problem from multiple angles.

How It Fits With Other Programs

CREID operated separately from, but alongside, the CDC's Emerging Infections Program (EIP). The EIP runs 12 sites inside the United States focused on turning disease research into public health decisions, and has done this work for nearly 30 years.

The two programs served different purposes. CREID focused on international research locations and rapid diagnostic development, while the EIP concentrated on tracking disease patterns and informing policy within the U.S.

Why This Timing Matters

New presidential administrations often shift scientific priorities based on policy goals rather than research needs — we saw this happen with stem cell research restrictions in the early 2000s, and again with climate science funding changes in the late 2010s. This pattern is not new in American science funding.

What stands out about the CREID decision is when it's happening. The network was specifically designed to address problems the COVID-19 pandemic exposed — particularly the need for faster ways to spot and test new diseases in parts of the world where diagnostic labs may not be well-equipped. International partnerships like these typically take years to build and trust takes time. Once funding ends, restarting those relationships costs more than simply restoring a budget line.

What Gets Lost

Removing CREID funding eliminates a dedicated pipeline for developing new diagnostic tests when a novel pathogen emerges. This gap matters most in regions where disease detection infrastructure is already weak.

The network also generated standardized research materials that laboratories around the world could use, helping ensure that different teams studying the same disease could compare their results reliably.

Beyond the immediate work, CREID supported the careers of graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and early-career scientists focused on emerging diseases. The informal research networks and relationships that developed through this funding often continue even after formal support ends, but they lose the coordination and resource-sharing that federal money made possible.

The Bigger Picture

The administration is redirecting research funding toward different priorities overall. Other scientific areas — particularly artificial intelligence and semiconductor research — are receiving increased support, apparently weighted more heavily on national security grounds.

The timing of this cut is worth considering carefully. Global infectious disease threats remain elevated, and the specialized knowledge and international partnerships that CREID built cannot be reassembled quickly when the next new pathogen appears. Researchers are now looking for alternative funding from private foundations or state programs to preserve what they can of this capacity.

Whether alternative sources can fill this gap remains uncertain. What is clear is that the research infrastructure for rapid response to emerging diseases is now smaller than it was three months ago.