The U.S. Military Is Picking Up mRNA Vaccine Research That RFK, Jr., Defunded
The Department of Defense funds biomedical research to ensure military and pandemic preparedness. This includes mRNA vaccine projects that RFK, Jr., recently defunded
The U.S. government invests in vaccine development, in part, to protect soldiers from dangerous pathogens in various parts of the world.
The abrupt termination last month of nearly half a billion dollars in US government contracts for mRNA vaccine research rattled scientists working inside and outside industry. The cuts raised alarm about the country’s commitment to , which is credited with saving millions of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic and is regarded as essential for fighting viruses in the future.
Yet not all large-scale research into mRNA vaccines in the United States is being dismantled. Nature has learnt that, even as the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — led by vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr — pulls back, the country’s military continues to bankroll parts of the same research.
Among the beneficiaries are programmes developing vaccines against some of the world’s deadliest pathogens, including the virus that causes Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF), a tick-borne disease that kills up to 40% of those infected. In the United States, the government considers such research crucial because these pathogens not only threaten soldiers deployed abroad, but could also ignite a global outbreak.
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
“A lot of us are at least relieved the Department of Defense [DoD] is not abandoning mRNA research,” says Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease specialist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland.
“The whole biodefence structure is completely derailed,” Adalja says. “I’ve never seen it be disconnected like this.”
Peter Berglund learnt that his company’s federally backed vaccine programme was being cut the same way that many other affected firms did in a 5 August notice from the HHS’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which ordered an immediate shutdown of ongoing studies. For Berglund, chief scientific officer at HDT Bio in Seattle, Washington, the news was a gut punch, as he told colleagues at a conference on RNA-based therapeutics in Boston, Massachusetts, this month.
HDT had been developing a next-generation CCHF vaccine based on a form of RNA that can copy itself inside cells. The company had secured tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts, which it used first to test a shot in mice and monkeys, and then to begin a human trial in Texas this July. The BARDA memo brought everything to a halt the very next month.
But “that was mommy”, Berglund says. “Then daddy calls.”
“It’s been so turbulent,” Berglund says. The DoD funding, although substantial, is less than what had originally been pledged in conjunction with BARDA. “But, at least now we can advance it through phase I” and worry about the rest later, he adds.
Others with projects co-funded by the JPEO also learnt of funding cuts and a “restructuring of collaborations” in the 5 August notice. But their situation is less clear.
Earlier this month, AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Cambridge, UK, began a human trial of two mRNA vaccines, despite the notice. Each is designed to protect against a different strain of avian influenza. Clinical-trial registries still list both BARDA and the JPEO as collaborators.
An AstraZeneca spokesperson declined to comment on the US government’s role in funding the trial against bird flu — which has been infecting US poultry and dairy cattle and raising the spectre of a leap into humans. The JPEO did not respond to requests for comment.
In a statement, HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard disputed suggestions that withdrawing from joint projects would weaken the nation’s pandemic preparedness, writing that “BARDA is prioritizing evidence-based, ethically grounded solutions.”
Not every mRNA project has fared so well: those lacking joint DoD support have been brought to a standstill.
At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, for instance, biomedical engineer Philip Santangelo had been using CRISPR gene editing to develop an inhalable flu therapy, delivered to the lungs through mRNA. The DoD, through its Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), had provided more than US$20 million to support early-stage development, but that funding ran out last year. A follow-on contract from BARDA was meant to underwrite the design and testing of a dry-powder formulation that would be easy to administer in emergency settings. With the BARDA money frozen, Santangelo says that he’s been forced to pursue funding from foundations, non-profit organizations and other non-governmental entities.
Santangelo is hardly alone in seeking ways to keep mRNA research on track. Other academics, navigating a minefield of uncertainty over whether US funding agencies will continue to financially support such work, still submit grant proposals — but the term ‘mRNA’ is often scrubbed out, replaced by phrases such as ‘nucleic-acid-based medicines’ to sidestep scrutiny.
A few glimmers of hope remain, however. A spending package advanced this month by a US House of Representatives committee directs BARDA to support mRNA-vaccine research. And the DoD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) solicited applications this year for its Reimagining the Next Generation of Biodefense Vaccines programme. According to Karl Ruping, chief executive of Tiba Biotech in Cambridge, Massachusetts, DTRA programme managers told him that the agency is open to supporting mRNA vaccines so long as they advance the goal of more-resilient biodefence tools.
Outside the defence establishment, the US Department of Agriculture is maintaining support for mRNA vaccine development as well, awarding grants for projects targeting respiratory viruses that affect pigs, chickens and cows.
Taken together, these programmes reflect commitment — but only in pockets of government, exposing a troubling absence of coordination, says Michael Osterholm, an infectious-disease researcher and biosecurity specialist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
For now, researchers can take comfort knowing that agencies outside Kennedy’s direct control are charting a different course. But the HHS leader’s influence remains strong, and many worry that he could soon shape policy across the entire federal agenda, including at the DoD. “I’m not sure that it’s the safe haven for mRNA research that some associate with it,” Osterholm says.
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on September 24, 2025.
Elie Dolgin is a science journalist in Somerville, Mass.
First published in 1869, Nature is the world’s leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you , you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, , must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
Thank you,
David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American
Source: www.scientificamerican.com