In a move that has stunned scientists, educators, and policy experts, President Donald Trump’s proposed 2026 federal budget outlines a series of sweeping and unprecedented cuts to America’s scientific infrastructure. If enacted, the budget would represent a historic retreat from federal investment in research, environmental protection, and public health. It could fundamentally cripple the nation’s ability to innovate, compete globally, and respond to crises.
Although budget proposals from the White House are ultimately subject to Congressional approval, this “skinny budget” signals a clear policy trajectory: a wholesale weakening of federal science. With some agencies facing cuts of more than 50%, and entire research divisions slated for elimination, the consequences for the nation’s scientific capacity and future economic growth could be, in the words of one science-policy leader, “catastrophic." Having spent years as a scientist myself at the NIH and FDA and having interacted with innumerable other federal agencies over many years, I concur.
An Ideological U-Turn on Science
At the heart of the proposed budget is a 23% across-the-board reduction in non-defense discretionary spending — but science agencies are hit much harder. The National Science Foundation (NSF), which funds nearly a quarter of all federally supported basic research at U.S. colleges and universities, would see its current budget of more than $9 billion halved. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s leading biomedical research agency, whose appropriation for the current fiscal year was $48 billion, faces a staggering 40% reduction, with plans to eliminate entire institutes focused on minority health and international collaboration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is among the hardest hit, with a proposed 55% cut that includes dismantling its main research arm. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would lose one-third of its funding — even as chronic diseases and epidemic and pandemic preparedness remain national concerns.
The Trump administration frames these decisions as a rejection of “woke” and “radical” science, promising instead to re-focus spending on "priority areas" such as artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, and quantum computing. Victoria LaCivita, the director of communications for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, stated that the administration’s goal is to “secure our standing as a global tech leader and end woke science spending.”
But this White House talking point belies a sweeping, radical gutting of government-conducted and government-funded science -- especially of basic, pre-commercial research -- that could cripple fields essential to national security, climate resilience, and public health. Below are just a few of many examples.
The National Science Foundation: Halving the Engine of Discovery
The NSF is a backbone of American research. It supports everything from climate modeling and clean-energy innovation to the social sciences that help policymakers understand behavior and economic trends. The Trump administration’s budget slashes NSF funding by $5 billion. Almost $1.1 billion in “broadening participation” grants, designed to increase diversity in STEM fields, would be cut — an 80% reduction. Even core operational funding is under threat, with a $93 million cut to agency staffing, possibly forcing layoffs of up to half of NSF personnel.
“If the cuts go through, I don’t know how the agency functions as Congress intended it,” said Kenneth Evans, a science-policy researcher at Rice University.
The National Institutes of Health: Crippling the Biomedical Research Engine
Perhaps the most alarming reduction is the proposed $21 billion cut to the NIH, which is arguably the world’s premier biomedical research agency. Without offering any evidence, the administration accused the NIH of promoting “dangerous ideologies” and “risky research.”
Calling the institution "too big and unfocused," the radical restructuring plan calls for the consolidation of the NIH’s 27 institutes into just five new “focus areas” — a bureaucratic upheaval that many experts say will destroy decades of carefully built infrastructure. Programs focusing on minority health and global collaboration would be eliminated altogether.
“These cuts would absolutely devastate the biomedical research enterprise,” said Carole LaBonne, a stem-cell biologist at Northwestern University. “It’s incredibly short-sighted.”
The damage is already evident. According to STAT, due to to funding and staffing cuts, there is turmoil at the NIH Clinical Center, the largest hospital in the U.S. devoted solely to medical research. Some researchers have scrapped plans to start new studies, and biopharma companies have been reluctant to sign research agreements with the center.
Former NIH director Monica Bertagnolli, appointed under President Joe Biden, called the administration's claims “grossly inaccurate or false,” and a “distorted view of an organization I know to be dedicated to improving the health of all people.”
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The proposed budget would slash CDC funding by roughly 39%, from $9.2 billion to $5.6 billion, according to Science | AAAS. Several noninfectious disease initiatives are slated for elimination, including the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the Global Health Center, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, which focuses on alternative therapies.-- despite the stated commitment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr — who, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees the CDC — to support such activities.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration: A Dark Age for Space Science
The Trump administration’s budget would also strip NASA of nearly a quarter of its funding. Astrophysics, planetary exploration, and Earth sciences — including critical climate-monitoring satellites — would face cuts of almost 50%.
Even iconic programs such as the Mars sample-acquisition mission and the International Space Station are on the chopping block. Although lunar and Mars exploration would continue under a new “space race” framing with China, the loss of foundational science could usher in what some are calling a “dark age” for NASA’s research missions.
Environmental and Earth Sciences: Targeted for Erasure
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — essential agencies for monitoring and protecting the environment and predicting important weather events — are facing what amounts to a coordinated dismantling. The EPA’s Office of Research and Development is to be dissolved.
At NOAA, a debilitating bottleneck has emerged: Almost 1,000 contracts, worth $230 million, are stalled, requiring personal review by political appointees — a process that has already disrupted essential functions, from weather forecasting to IT services. One result has been a suspension by the National Weather Service of weather balloon launches at selected sites, decreasing essential data collection, and shifts have been cut at National Weather Service offices around the country.
“It’s an absurd and dangerous way to run a science agency,” said Craig McLean, a former NOAA official.
A Warning to Young Scientists — and the World
For the next generation of researchers, many of whom have spent years training for university appointments, the message is stark. “If I were starting my career, I would be out of here in a heartbeat,” said Michael Lubell, a physicist and science-policy expert at City University of New York. The American Association for the Advancement of Science called the budget “catastrophic,” warning that it could push early-career scientists to seek opportunities overseas.
This isn't just a domestic issue. The United States has long been the global leader in science and innovation, drawing talent from around the world and fueling discoveries that benefit all of humanity. Slashing its scientific infrastructure now could cede that leadership to other nations — particularly China, whose science budget has steadily increased.
Can Congress Stop the Hemorrhaging?
There is still hope that Congress — which ultimately controls the purse strings — will reject the most extreme proposals. Jennifer Zeitzer of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology expressed cautious optimism: “I cannot imagine Congress approving the amount and scope of cuts requested in the administration’s skinny budget.”
But given the political climate, and the willingness of some lawmakers to embrace the White House’s framing of much of science as ideological, nothing is certain.
Conclusion: A Crossroads for American Science
Budgets are revealing. They reflect a nation’s priorities, values, and vision for the future. The administration’s proposed 2026 budget paints a future where science is no longer a national priority — but an ideological battleground. The damage from even partial implementation could take decades to repair.
As lawmakers begin negotiations in earnest, the stakes are clear: The very foundation of American scientific leadership is on the line. Whether they protect that foundation — or allow it to crumble — may define not only the fate of this generation of researchers, but the nation’s medium-term and long-term ability to innovate and compete. Let us hope that in the end Congress will heed the admonition of Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, who ran the CDC from 2009-2017, “You don’t improve things by destroying them. You improve them by improving them.”
Henry I. Miller, MS, MD
Henry I. Miller, MS, MD, is the Glenn Swogger Distinguished Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health. His research focuses on public policy toward science, technology, and medicine, encompassing a number of areas, including pharmaceutical development, genetic engineering, models for regulatory reform, precision medicine, and the emergence of new viral diseases. Dr. Miller served for fifteen years at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a number of posts, including as the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology.
