As the second year of the Donald J. Trump administration unfolds, the future of science funding in the United States is becoming increasingly uncertain. Key decisions regarding appropriations for fiscal year 2026, which will affect critical federal science agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are due by January 30, 2026. Analysts suggest that the ongoing negotiations in Congress may not conclude in time to secure necessary funding.
According to Alessandra Zimmermann, project director of research and development policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the current continuing resolution indicates that it is unlikely Congress will finalize the appropriations bills by the deadline. The House and Senate are still deliberating their respective versions of the bill, which will allocate funds to the NSF and other vital agencies. Notably, neither proposed version aligns with the drastic funding cuts suggested in the President’s budget request, which indicated a potential 57% reduction.
Challenges Ahead for Researchers
Despite the potential for stable funding levels, the process of securing federal grants is expected to become more challenging in 2026. Robert “Bob” Cook-Deegan, a professor at the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University, notes that the NIH implemented forward funding for many grants in 2025. This approach, which provides researchers with a lump sum instead of incremental payments, could hinder the number of new projects that receive funding unless accompanied by an overall budget increase.
The NIH’s congressional budget justification indicates a plan to utilize 50% of appropriated funds for forward funding grants. An analysis by Jeremy M. Berg, a biochemist and former director of the US National Institute of General Medical Sciences, estimates that this shift could reduce the number of grants awarded from approximately 10,000 to around 6,200.
Researchers may also find themselves at a disadvantage based on their fields of study. The current administration is prioritizing funding for areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum science, and nuclear energy. As a result, Zimmermann suggests that funding for other scientific disciplines may face reductions to accommodate these priorities.
Changes in Grant Review Procedures
In December, both the NIH and NSF announced modifications to their grant review procedures to expedite the approval of research in prioritized fields. This change aims to create a more structured and transparent process, addressing criticisms from the previous year when grant approvals were seen as inconsistent. As Berg explains, the alterations are intended to formalize a process that previously lacked clarity.
With potential funding cuts looming, researchers in less favored fields may increasingly seek alternative financing. Cook-Deegan anticipates a shift toward privately funded research and development as a response to the evolving landscape.
Another contentious issue is the indirect costs associated with federal grants, which cover administrative and infrastructure expenses at institutions. The current administration has proposed capping these costs at 15% of the total grant amount, a measure that has faced legal challenges. In response, the Association of American Universities is advocating for a different model to Congress, as noted by Tobin Smith, the association’s senior vice president for government relations and public policy.
Guidance from the US Office of Management and Budget regarding indirect costs is expected by the end of January, further shaping the uncertain landscape for science funding in the upcoming fiscal year.
