Trump’s 2026 Budget Outline Raises Concerns in Scientific Community
On May 2, 2025, President Donald Trump presented an initial version of his budget proposal for the 2026 fiscal year—a document commonly called a “skinny budget” due to its sparse details and limited coverage. Despite its brevity, the plan has alarmed many in the U.S. research and academic sectors, who perceive the significant cuts to federal science agencies as a critical jeopardy to American innovation and scientific prominence.
Significant Reductions to Major Science Agencies
At the heart of the alarm is a drastic cut in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), a key federal agency that funds fundamental research and education in non-medical science domains. The NSF’s budget, which is approximately $9 billion annually, would face a reduction of about 55%, drastically impairing its capacity to support disciplines such as physics, chemistry, and engineering.
Equally concerning is a proposed 40% reduction in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the agency that finances biomedical research in the U.S. Its budget would shrink from $48.5 billion to approximately $27 billion, raising concerns among health researchers and pharmaceutical developers alike.
NASA, the space agency known for its investigations into space and Earth sciences, would encounter a total budget cut of 24%, with its science division facing a particularly severe 47% reduction. Additionally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a smaller yet vital agency that promotes measurement science and innovation, would endure a 25% funding cut, losing around $325 million.
The Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which provides a substantial amount of funding for research in physical sciences and materials chemistry, would not escape the cuts either. Its budget would plummet from $8.8 billion to $7.7 billion, resulting in a $1.1 billion reduction.
Threats to Environmental Research
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seems to be heavily impacted. The budget proposes a 54% reduction—an equivalent of $5 billion in cuts—and even threatens the complete elimination of the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. While the agency claims it will redirect some personnel to other divisions like the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the move is widely interpreted as a devaluation of environmental science activities within the agency.
Widespread Opposition from Scientific Organizations
The American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have denounced the proposed budget in strong terms. ACS cautioned that these cuts could lead to “very adverse effects on U.S. research, derail innovation and threaten the pipeline of future scientists.” They vowed to keep lobbying Congress to reject the proposal.
AAAS CEO Sudip Parikh characterized the budget as “catastrophic,” warning that it would effectively remove the U.S. from the global competition for research and development superiority. “We will have lost it,” he said, stressing the enduring harm such a budget could inflict on America’s scientific reputation.
Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, highlighted that these reductions would harm vital contributors to American productivity and innovation. He urged Congress to take decisive action to protect the country’s economic future by opposing the proposed cuts.
Other organizations, including the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the American Physical Society (APS), echoed these worries. They underscored the necessity of sustained federal support for scientific endeavors, noting that rival nations, particularly China, are aggressively increasing their research and innovation investments.
Consequences for U.S. Global Competitiveness
Neal Lane, a physicist who previously acted as science adviser to President Bill Clinton and directed the NSF, cautioned that the implications of this budget are deeply concerning. “China already boasts gaining the edge in chemistry and other physical sciences,” Lane noted. “With this budget, the administration seems to convey that America is not particularly invested in science.”
The complete version of President Trump’s 2026 fiscal year budget, expected in the coming weeks, will provide more detailed information. However, unless Congress makes substantial changes, many research institutions may need to start preparing for the long-term effects of a major decline in federal research funding.
Potential Outcomes in Congress
During his first term, Trump had also proposed significant reductions to scientific agencies—but each time, Congress stepped in to maintain or even boost funding for institutions such as NIH, NSF, and NASA. However, this time, the landscape appears more precarious. Experts indicate that Congress may be less inclined or capable of countering the proposed budget, especially given a stronger executive branch that has already started to delay or cancel congressionally approved funding to research agencies.
Final Thoughts
President Trump’s 2026 budget outline signifies a crucial turning point for U.S. science policy. If implemented, the intended reductions could disrupt research ecosystems for years to come, impacting not just scientists and academic institutions.