Under Trump's proposal, federally funded basic research would see a significant reduction of 34%
In a move that has raised concerns within the scientific community, President Trump's proposed budget for the 2026 financial year includes significant cuts to basic research funding, particularly at the National Science Foundation (NSF). According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), these cuts could have catastrophic consequences for US scientific progress.
John Holdren, an environmental and climate scientist who served as science adviser to former president Barack Obama, has called these cuts "terrible" for US scientific progress. Holdren further stated that the bipartisan character of values that underpin the US economy, public health, environmental quality, and national security should lead Congress to reject these indefensible Trump proposals.
The White House released a skinny version of its budget request for the 2026 financial year in May. In June, the administration released more details of the proposal. If adopted by Congress, the proposed cuts could curtail the US's capabilities to compete with countries like China in areas such as biomedicine, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, as stated by Joanne Padrón Carney, the AAAS's chief government relations officer.
The budget proposal for the 2026 financial year, as proposed by President Trump, includes a decrease in funding for chemistry within the NSF's maths and physical sciences program, with a 75% reduction. Additionally, the proposal includes a 71% cut in funding for materials research. If Congress enacts the proposed plan, science funding more broadly, including basic and applied work, as well as at R&D facilities, would decrease by about 22%, from $198 billion to $154 billion, as found by the AAAS.
These cuts could run the risk of not reaping the economic benefits from the science and engineering that leads to innovations, as stated by Joanne Padrón Carney. Neal Lane, a physicist who served as science adviser to former president Bill Clinton and previously as director of the NSF, agrees that these funding cuts in science are unprecedented.
If Congress sustains these reductions, Neal Lane warns that the US 'will cede to China, in a single year' its position of global scientific and technical leadership that the US has held for 80 years, since the end of the second world war. The National Science Foundation employees' dissent declaration, which was aired by the House science committee in a 2025 news story, is currently on indefinite hold.
Despite these proposed cuts, congressional appropriations committees have largely rejected the proposed cuts and instead increased funding in some cases. However, AAAS underscores that continued reductions of even 23%-25% (as seen in some House proposals) remain inadequate to sustain a strong US research infrastructure. Therefore, AAAS considers Trump's 2026 budget harmful to sustained investment in basic research, putting at risk the future competitiveness and prosperity of US science and technology.
Sources: 1. National Science Foundation employees' dissent declaration aired by House science committee (Rebecca Trager, July 24, 2025) 2. National Science Foundation employees' dissent declaration on 'indefinite hold' (Rebecca Trager, July 15, 2025)
- John Holdren, former science adviser to President Obama, criticizes the proposed 2026 budget for significant cuts to science funding, stating that these cuts are "terrible" for US scientific progress and could potentially harm the US's competitiveness in fields such as biomedicine, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence.
- If the proposed 2026 budget is enacted by Congress, it could result in a decrease in funding for environmental research, as well as a decrease in funding for R&D facilities, potentially leading to a reduction in the economic benefits from science and engineering innovations and potentially putting the US's position in environmental research and science and technology at risk.
