The proposal from the Trump administration for the upcoming fiscal year indicates significant funding reductions for major US research agencies, set to commence on 1 October. This announcement has generated considerable alarm among experts in research policy and scientific organizations, who are urging Congress to dismiss the cuts, similar to its actions regarding the fiscal year 2026 budget request, which posed a serious threat to the financial stability of science agencies.
The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) conveyed ‘serious concerns’ regarding the budget proposal, recognizing that although it is less extreme than last year’s, the research community is still grappling with previous sudden funding alterations. The ASBMB applauded Congress for turning down the FY26 cuts, which prevented a funding calamity, although the delay in the release of funds was acknowledged as an issue.
Sudip Parikh, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), emphasized the necessity of fully utilizing all FY26 research funds to sustain the progress of American science and bolster US global competitiveness.
The White House’s budget request for 2027 delineated reductions for vital scientific agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF) is facing an almost 55% cut, slashing its budget from $8.8 billion to $4 billion. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) would encounter an 11% reduction, bringing its budget down to around $41 billion. Research agencies within the Department of Energy are facing considerable cuts, with the Office of Science potentially losing over $1 billion, or 13.5%. NASA’s total funding might decrease by 23%, with its science account slashed by more than 46%.
Neal Lane, a former NSF director and science adviser to President Clinton, described the prospective cuts as disastrous for US scientific preeminence, especially when contrasted with China. Jeremy Berg, former director of the NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, noted that the proposal indicates a lack of prioritization for science funding by the administration. While expecting Congress to likely reject the proposal, Berg expressed concern over the possibility that it could facilitate superficial endorsement for science funding while effectively executing cuts.