In 2025, the U.S. scientific community experienced significant upheaval as the Trump administration enacted deep cuts to funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Over 3,800 research grants were frozen or terminated, totaling more than $3 billion in unspent funds. These cuts reshape U.S. science by impacting numerous research areas, from cancer treatment to STEM diversity initiatives.
Scale of the Cuts
The NIH saw approximately $2.3 billion in unspent funds across nearly 2,500 grants frozen or terminated. The NSF followed with over 1,300 grants affected, totaling around $700 million in unspent funds. These cuts don’t reflect the full scope of government reductions in science, as agencies like NASA, NOAA, and the EPA aren’t included in the figures. However, they highlight the breadth of the cuts and the long-term consequences for the scientific community.
Targeted Initiatives
The cuts specifically targeted initiatives related to diversity, equity, inclusion, environmental protection, vaccine hesitancy, and public health. These included:
- Cancer Hub: The largest single cut ($77 million) froze support for Northwestern University’s Lurie Cancer Center, a national hub for cancer research, care, and community outreach.
- STEM Barriers: The NSF’s INCLUDES initiative, which aimed to diversify the STEM workforce by removing systemic barriers, lost $9 million in remaining funds. The initiative connected hundreds of researchers, organizations, and community groups working toward this goal.
- Vaccine Uptake: A grant ($200,000) aimed at understanding and reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among young Black adults in three Southern states was terminated.
- Diverse Immune Cells: A grant ($490,000) to investigate how neurons regulate specialized immune cells in the retina lost its funding. The term “diversity” within the grant description may have contributed to its termination.
- Education Disparities: A grant ($1.7 million) to study the impact of minority participation programs in Maryland by gender, ethnicity, and transfer status was terminated.
Methodology and Caveats
The cuts were enacted through a combination of grant freezes, terminations, and the redirection of funds to other priorities. The administration justified the cuts by citing a need for fiscal responsibility and a focus on “core” scientific research. However, critics argue that the cuts were ideologically driven, targeting initiatives that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The long-term consequences of these cuts remain to be seen. Scientists fear that the cuts will stifle innovation, discourage young researchers from entering the field, and exacerbate existing inequalities in STEM. The cuts also raise concerns about the politicization of science, as funding decisions appear to be increasingly influenced by ideological considerations.
These cuts represent a significant shift in U.S. science funding, signaling a potential decline in government support for research that doesn’t align with the administration’s priorities. The scientific community must adapt to this new reality by seeking alternative funding sources, advocating for science-based policies, and resisting efforts to undermine the integrity of research
