The State of Science: How Funding Cuts Pose a Threat to Research

Can scientific research survive without federal funding? The question has been asked with the onset of Donald Trump’s presidency and his administration’s plans to significantly reduce the United States’s science budget. Trump’s proposed budget for the 2026 fiscal year calls for unprecedented cuts to science and research funding, marking some of the most drastic decreases in recent years. With billions of dollars of research money slashed, numerous programs cut, and hundreds of thousands of researchers unable to receive grants, the new budget poses major challenges to the future of science. As the ramifications of these major funding reductions remain unclear, many young scientists and aspiring STEM students feel concerned about the volatility of their careers.

Beginning on October 1, 2025, the start of the 2026 fiscal year, one of the organizations with the largest financial restraints is the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which faces a decrease of 40% in its funding budget. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical research, spanning 300 health topics and awarding more than 60,000 grants that support over 300,000 researchers across 2,500 institutions. However, the Trump administration’s spending plan threatens to cut the NIH’s 48 billion dollars of research funds in 2025 to 27 billion in 2026. Furthermore, despite the plan’s expected implementation later this year, the NIH is already experiencing financial cutbacks. In the first three months of 2025, the Trump administration has cut 2.7 billion in NIH funding, cancelling grants intended for cancer research, cardiovascular disease studies, diabetes science, infectious diseases clinical trials, and many other programs. The categories of infectious disease, mental and behavioral health, maternal and reproductive health, and cancer account for nearly 700 million dollars of the 2.7 billion in NIH funding that has been terminated in the last months. With financial cuts of nearly half the institute’s budget, many scientists are struggling with a lack of funding, as well as a lack of support for their research.

The NIH is not the only funding organization experiencing major decreases. The National Science Foundation (NSF) faces a reduction of 56%. The 2026 budget for the NSF, one of the world’s leading funders of basic research, drops around 5 billion dollars and poses risks to roughly half of the NSF staff who could potentially lose their jobs. The shrink primarily targets climate science, clean energy, and behavioral and economic sciences, and 1.1 billion dollars are being cut from programs aimed at attracting members of under-represented groups in science, an 80% drop from the previous years. Additionally, the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) faces a one-third reduction from its 2024 amount of 9 billion. The cut plans to eliminate many programs, such as one aiming to prevent chronic diseases.

Trump’s downscale of federal funding targets not just the medical fields. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will have its budget drop by almost 25% from its 2025 amount to 18.8 billion in 2026. This is the largest single-year cut ever proposed. NASA’s science division, which includes astrophysics, planetary, and Earth-science research, will be slashed by nearly half, and projects such as climate-monitoring satellites and Mars samples using robotic spacecrafts are at risk of cancellation. The budget also reduces the funding for the International Space Station; however, it gives money for lunar and Mars exploration, citing 1 billion dollars for unspecified “Mars-focused” programs in the budget document. This raises questions and concerns about where resources are going and which projects are being prioritized.

Many departments and institutions continue to be downsized, such as the Department of Energy (DoE), facing a nearly 5 billion dollars cut from 2025 to 2026. Shrunk by 1.1 billion, the DoE’s Office of Science experiences a 13% reduction aimed mainly at climate science and clean-energy research. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has its funding slashed nearly 55% to 4.2 billion, with its primary research department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD), dropping by 235 million. Furthermore, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) faces a reduction of at least 25% or 1.5 billion, and the US Geological Survey, which oversees research on natural hazards and geoscience topics, is expected to lose 564 million. This ends funds for projects focused on climate change in favor of those that focus on energy and mineral research, continuing the debate over the importance of supporting certain programs over others.

With budget cuts in nearly every major science institution, opportunities are becoming increasingly difficult to find. Many researchers are losing their jobs, highlighting the uncertainty of the scientific field. The upcoming years present many concerns, particularly for the new generation of young scientists. According to a college student debating between a Doctor of Medicine (MD), a medical degree, and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), a research-based degree, she states that the changes to research funding are impacting her career choice. The reduction causes research to become more precarious, causing her to question the long-term effects of the budget cuts and her potential future in research. “It’s scary seeing how opportunities that we thought were so readily available are now becoming really hard to get simply because institutions don’t have the funds to support them,” she says when asked about her feelings towards the budget cuts.

Similarly, the defunding of research programs negatively impacts the students just beginning their science path. The crackdown on science blocks many young students from pursuing their dreams. “It’s really harmful for my aspirations because the future is so uncertain,” a high school student claims. She wishes to go into STEM, but the recent developments only create more obstacles in her journey.

These students are not alone in their concerns over the budget cuts. The general consensus regarding the reduced funding is overwhelmingly negative as the younger generation of researchers voices their opposition, disliking the impact on research opportunities, career prospects, and the future of scientific advancements. They worry about the limited funding, the reduced access to conferences, and the potential for fewer positions in graduate programs. Student protests against the cuts are becoming increasingly common. With many students and faculty holding protests to express their dissent, the budget reductions reveal the significance of the nationwide issue for students all over the country. A student explains her feelings and something many others agree with: “It is disheartening being told, ‘You’re the future of science,’ but the future of science looks like it might not exist.”

With the Trump administration’s plans for cuts to research funding, the upcoming years of science will result in major changes. As public funders face being downsized, competition will increase for the limited opportunities available. Public organizations, such as the NIH and NSF, the predominant funders of scientific research, cannot support the hundreds of thousands of researchers in need of grants, presenting the challenges science will face. Without federal funding, questions and concerns remain over what the future holds for research science. Will intellectual progress be curtailed? Will scientific improvements become stagnant? Whether the funding cuts will change the young generation’s minds about going into science or increase advocacy for more opportunities in the sector, the next years remain unknown. We can only wait and see how the future of science and research unfolds.