A year after the Trump administration initiated aggressive cuts to federal science agencies, including mass layoffs, grant restrictions, and proposed drastic budget reductions, key elements of U.S. scientific research funding have held firm. Through a combination of court rulings and bipartisan congressional action, many of the most severe proposed slashes have been blocked or significantly mitigated.
Last February, the administration moved swiftly: it reduced thousands of staff at agencies like NASA and NOAA, limited grant disbursements to universities, and attempted to cut overhead reimbursements for research institutions. Subsequent actions included revoking grants perceived as tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, targeting universities amid antisemitism allegations, and submitting a budget proposal that sought reductions of over 40% for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), nearly 57% for the National Science Foundation (NSF), and 24% for NASA.
These moves sparked widespread alarm within the scientific community. Critics, including Holden Thorp, editor of the Science journals, described the actions as a “betrayal” of the long-standing post-World War II partnership between the federal government and universities that has driven American innovation.
However, over the past year, that dire outlook has eased considerably. Multiple lawsuits filed by organizations such as the ACLU, the American Public Health Association (APHA), the Association of American Universities (AAU), and others successfully challenged major policy shifts in court. For instance, federal appeals courts upheld injunctions against unlawful cuts to NIH grant funding, including restrictions on indirect costs and suspensions tied to university policies, preserving billions in research support.
Congress has played a pivotal role as well. In recent weeks, lawmakers passed and sent to the president funding packages that largely rejected the administration’s deepest cuts. On Tuesday, the House joined the Senate in approving a bill that provides a modest increase for NIH research, allocating approximately $48.7 billion—a $415 million boost over the previous year—directly countering the proposed 40%+ reduction. President Trump signed the legislation that night.
Overall, federal science funding remains roughly flat or sees minor adjustments compared to last year: NASA faces about a 1.6% cut, the NSF around 3.4%, while some areas like certain NIH programs receive slight uplifts. This stands in stark contrast to the administration’s push for a nearly 36% overall reduction in non-defense science and development spending.
Experts view this as a significant win under challenging circumstances. Joanne Padrón Carney of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) noted that while flat funding might not typically be celebrated, it represents success given the threats faced. “Congress has essentially rejected the president’s very dramatic cuts,” she said.
Challenges persist: agencies like NOAA and NASA have seen substantial staff losses, leadership changes at NIH divisions, halted work on certain climate reports, and reduced weather monitoring capabilities. An executive order requiring senior political approval for many grants could continue to influence priorities, and the administration may pursue further defunding of disfavored topics.
Nevertheless, after a turbulent period that threatened the foundational model of U.S. research, the scientific enterprise has proven resilient. As Padrón Carney summarized, “science is enduring as best it can.” The White House has not commented specifically on Congress’s decisions but previously expressed support for aspects of the passed bill.
