The Trump administration is proposing dramatic funding cuts for key US research agencies for the next financial year, which begins on 1 October. Research policy experts and science organisations are urging Congress to reject these cuts, as it did with the president’s 2026 budget request that would have devastated science agencies’ budgets.
The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) said that it has ‘grave concerns’ about the administration’s new budget request. ‘While this proposal is less drastic than last year’s, the research community is still reeling from the disruptions caused by last year’s seismic policy changes and abrupt funding cuts,’ the organisation stated.
‘Thanks to strong bipartisan support, Congress rejected the administration’s FY26 [fiscal year 2026] budget request and avoided a funding catastrophe that would have been irreversible,’ ASBMB added. However, the group noted that the financial package that Congress ultimately approved still took almost two months to reach funding bodies, ‘significantly delaying the issuance of awards’.
Sudip Parikh, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), echoes those sentiments. ‘Congress did its job and rejected a catastrophic proposal for FY26, which would have further damaged US global competitiveness,’ he stated. ‘It is imperative that all FY26 funds are put to use for research as intended by Congress to ensure momentum for American science.’ The AAAS has released detailed analysis of the new budget proposal.
The White House’s 2027 request, issued on 3 April, would slash funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by nearly 55%, dropping the agency’s budget from $8.8 billion (£6.5 billion) to $4 billion.
For the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) the administration has proposed about $41 billion for 2027, representing a decrease of roughly 11% from the current level.
President Trump has also requested significant cuts to the Department of Energy’s research agencies, including its Office of Science, which would lose more than $1 billion, or 13.5%. In addition, he is proposing that Nasa’s overall budget be decreased by 23% and that the agency’s science account decrease by more than 46%.
President Trump’s plan would spell the end of one of the world’s premier scientific institutions
Neal Lane, former director of the NSF
Neal Lane, a physicist who served as science adviser to former president Bill Clinton and previously as director of the NSF, is alarmed by the new budget proposal.
‘President Trump’s plan to cut NSFs budget by 54.7% – on top of previous cuts and the loss of over one-third of its staff – would spell the end of one of the world’s premier scientific institutions, created 75 years ago with the unique mission to promote America’s progress in science,’ he warns. ‘This destruction of NSF, along with the administration’s actions to weaken NIH, Nasa, DOE, and other research agencies and programmes, would quickly cede America’s leadership in science and technology to China.’
Jeremy Berg, a biochemist who served as director of the NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences for almost eight years, says the White House’s 2027 budget request ‘makes a clear statement that science funding is not a priority of the administration’. However, he expects that most or all of it will be ignored by Congress, which tends to be supportive of science funding.
Nevertheless, Berg is worried that the proposal is ‘so draconian’ that it leaves room for members of Congress to push back against the president’s budget and appear to be strong champions of science while supporting final numbers that in effect amount to budget cuts.
No comments yet