The White House’s latest budget slashes federal science funding while claiming to “fix” ideological bias, triggering a fierce backlash from researchers and public health leaders.
At a Glance
- The White House’s FY2026 budget proposes cutting $12 billion from federal science programs, including $9.5 billion from NIH grants.
- Over 340 current and former NIH scientists have signed a public letter condemning the cuts as threats to public health and innovation.
- The NSF faces a proposed 55% funding reduction, with programs tied to climate, DEI, and social science among the first targets.
- Climate and environmental research at agencies like NOAA, NASA, and EPA are set for drastic reductions or termination.
- The administration argues the changes will improve efficiency and correct ideological overreach, while scientists warn of lasting damage to U.S. leadership.
Budget Blueprint
The White House’s fiscal year 2026 proposal outlines dramatic cuts to federal science agencies under the banner of fiscal discipline and ideological reform. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) would see its budget drop nearly 40%, from $47 billion to around $27 billion. Cuts target peer-reviewed grants, administrative overhead, and centers focused on health equity.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) faces a 55% cut, with potential elimination of social and climate science funding. Environmental agencies like NOAA and the EPA are also on the chopping block, with climate-focused programs especially vulnerable. Even NASA’s Earth Science Division faces deep retrenchment.
Watch a report: Republican megabill would cut critical research funding.
The administration contends that redirecting funds will improve accountability, concentrate efforts on “chronic disease” priorities, and eliminate perceived ideological bloat.
Scientists Push Back
More than 340 NIH employees, including 60 publicly identified, signed the June 9 “Bethesda Declaration,” calling the budget an attack on public health and scientific independence. They highlight the abrupt cancellation of over 2,000 research grants—valued at $12 billion—including global health trials like tuberculosis treatments in Haiti.
At NSF, CDC, and NASA, staff have described the budget as an ideologically driven overhaul that sidelines core missions. Programs addressing women’s health, HIV, and underrepresented populations are especially vulnerable. Critics warn that halting peer-reviewed research undermines both taxpayer investment and global scientific credibility.
Long-Term Consequences
Leading institutions like the Association of American Universities warn that the cuts could trigger a brain drain, with early-career researchers already reporting increased interest in overseas opportunities. A recent survey suggests a 32%–35% rise in inquiries from U.S.-based scientists exploring international placements.
The administration, meanwhile, has defended the budget as a pivot toward national health priorities and fiscal realism. White House officials cite “ideological bloat” and “wasteful spending” as justification for the changes, while maintaining support for select programs in AI and national defense research.
However, congressional resistance and multiple pending lawsuits could block or reshape key provisions. Upcoming oversight hearings are expected to intensify scrutiny, with bipartisan concern already emerging around NIH and NSF impacts. Even partial implementation could, critics argue, leave an indelible mark on American scientific capacity and leadership.
