The National Institutes of Health has reportedly lifted restrictions that had blocked funding for research projects in South Africa, reopening a potentially important route for collaborations in HIV, tuberculosis and other fields. But the reported decision is partial: South African applicants remain excluded from certain research-training and career-development support administered by NIH’s Fogarty International Center.
The change, described in reports published from Aug. 20 through Aug. 24, could allow eligible projects to move forward after a prolonged period of uncertainty for institutions that have been major partners in global health research. Its immediate practical effect is not yet clear. NIH has not publicly released the reported South Africa-specific directive, and the accounts do not identify which pending awards, active projects or trial networks will receive funding, or when.
What the reported NIH decision says
News24 reported that it obtained an internal NIH memorandum dated Aug. 17 and signed by NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya. The outlet said the document was marked as not for distribution outside the government and said that meritorious research projects located in South Africa could proceed. According to the report, the memo distinguished NIH research grants from foreign aid or assistance.
The memo itself has not been made public in the available materials, so its language, legal rationale and operational instructions cannot be independently assessed. Still, the action was also described by the global-health advocacy organization AVAC and by Business Insider Africa. Those accounts agree on the key boundary: the reopening does not extend to Fogarty International Center research-training and career-development applications from South Africa.
That exclusion is consequential because training awards and career-development programs support researchers at earlier stages of their work and can help sustain expertise at universities and research centers. The reports do not specify every Fogarty mechanism affected, however. They variously refer to training grants, training applications and career-development support, making it premature to characterize the restriction as covering all Fogarty programs.
A reversal within a changed international funding system
The description of a “ban” can obscure a broader change in NIH’s approach to international partnerships. On May 1, 2025, NIH issued an official notice on foreign subawards saying it would not issue awards containing subawards to foreign entities, or accept requests to add new foreign components or subawards to ongoing projects, while it developed a new award structure. The policy applied prospectively to grants and cooperative agreements, though NIH said it would continue direct awards to foreign entities.
NIH later announced that the new structure would replace traditional foreign subawards with linked, separately awarded international project components for eligible research. Under the agency’s international-collaboration framework, the approach was to apply to competing applications due on or after Jan. 25, 2026. That means the reported South Africa decision should not be read as confirmation that the pre-2025 system of foreign subawards has been restored.
Instead, the available record points to a narrower conclusion: South Africa may again be eligible for NIH-supported research under a system whose award mechanics have changed. Whether institutions can readily use the linked-award structure, whether existing collaborations need to be reconfigured, and whether funding decisions will move quickly are unanswered questions.
Research capacity may take longer to recover
South Africa is a significant setting for studies of HIV and tuberculosis, including clinical research and prevention work conducted with international partners. The funding disruption affected more than applications on paper. News24 reported that the Desmond Tutu HIV Centre had retrenched staff after funding stopped. Its director, Linda-Gail Bekker, also said the center had not received confirmation that South Africa would be included in forthcoming clinical-trial-unit networks.
Those reports do not establish a measurable effect on health outcomes, and no clinical finding is attached to the NIH action. They do show why resuming eligibility alone may not immediately restore research capacity. Restarting studies can require rehiring, renewing contracts, rebuilding data and laboratory operations, and confirming participation in multi-country networks. A funding policy shift may be necessary for those steps, but it does not guarantee them.
Landon Myer of the University of Cape Town’s School of Public Health told News24 that the full operational meaning remained uncertain and urged caution. That assessment fits the evidence currently available: the reported policy shift is meaningful, but no public NIH notice has yet set out an implementation timetable, a list of covered awards or the amount of funding involved.
Putting the cited losses in context
One widely repeated figure requires particular care. Business Insider Africa reported that Ntobeko Ntusi, president of the South African Medical Research Council, estimated that South African research projects had lost nearly $450 million amid wider U.S. funding cuts. The figure is an estimate of broader losses associated with those cuts, not a newly announced NIH allocation, an NIH-only loss total or an amount that NIH has now restored.
Accounts differ slightly on the duration and starting point of the disruption, describing it as roughly 17 months or nearly 18 months and connecting it to restrictions introduced in early 2025. The official May 2025 NIH notice documents the agency-wide move away from foreign subawards, but it does not itself establish the full timeline or scope of the South Africa-specific interruption described in later reporting.
For South African investigators, the next evidence will be administrative rather than rhetorical: notices of award, acceptance of applications, decisions on linked international components and confirmation that research sites can participate in future networks. Until those details emerge, the reported reopening is best viewed as a partial restoration of eligibility, not proof that the earlier funding relationship or its research workforce has been fully rebuilt.