Funding Fallout: Navigating the New Reality of U.S. Science Support

Read the full feature article here.

In early 2025, the U.S. scientific landscape was shaken by sweeping federal budget reductions that threatened the stability of academic and regulatory research. These cuts stem from the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched in January 2025 as a restructured version of the U.S. Digital Service. DOGE’s stated mission is to modernize technology, streamline government operations, and eliminate inefficiencies—but its reforms have carried a heavy cost for science.

The proposed budget slashes are dramatic: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding is set to fall by 40%, National Science Foundation (NSF) by 55%, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 31%. For many laboratories, this has meant frozen or cancelled grant competitions, prolonged delays in award notifications, and, in some cases, the abrupt termination of ongoing projects. The ripple effect extends beyond individual research teams to graduate students, postdocs, and technical staff, all facing shrinking job security and diminished opportunities for training.

Voices from across the community reveal a sense of urgency and frustration. Kevin Schug warns that academic research is being forced into shorter-term, commercially aligned projects rather than exploratory, long-term science. Susan Richardson notes that reduced funding particularly threatens environmental monitoring and public health research—areas where long data records are essential.

Institutions are responding with triage strategies: redirecting internal funds, scaling back experimental scope, delaying equipment upgrades, and intensifying the search for industry partnerships. Collaborative, interdisciplinary initiatives—which often rely on diverse funding streams—are especially vulnerable, as uncertainty makes it harder to commit resources or retain specialized staff.

This problem is not unique to the United States. Researchers in the UK are experiencing parallel pain as fiscal caution and political signalling mean that long-term science investment is being overruled. This raises the spectre of a broader, international erosion of scientific capacity, as nations risk undermining the very infrastructure needed to respond to complex, long-term challenges.

While many scientists remain determined to adapt, the consensus is clear: without sustained investment, the pipeline of innovation will narrow, slowing progress for years to come.