During April, as part of the annual federal budget cycle, the Trump administration presented the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2027 to the House and Senate budget committees. Similar to its FY26 proposal, the administration plans a 10% reduction in non-defense spending from the previous year’s Congressional appropriation while seeking a 47% increase in funding for the Pentagon.
The proposed budget particularly impacts scientific agencies and programs:
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration faces a 28% budget cut, with its research lab and cooperative institutes scheduled for elimination;
- Over 50 NASA science missions would be canceled, including much of the agency’s atmospheric sciences and space weather research, with a 42% reduction in its science budget;
- The National Science Foundation’s science and research would see a 53% cut;
- The Environmental Protection Agency’s overall budget would be reduced by 52%;
- The National Institute of Standards and Technology would face a 54% budget cut;
- The US Geological Survey’s budget would be reduced by 37%;
- The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is slated for elimination;
- The HHS agency that supports transformative biomedical and health research would experience a 37% budget cut; and
- The US Department of Agriculture’s institute for agriculture-related science would face a 38% reduction.
These budget cuts, coupled with the administration’s persistent undermining of science, have far-reaching consequences beyond merely affecting federal programs and their personnel. Last year, nearly $30 billion in grants from the NIH, NSF, and EPA were delayed or terminated. In addition, other challenges such as threats to universities over “woke programs,” mass student visa revocations, and misinformation campaigns on critical research areas like climate change, infectious diseases, and gender health have led to declining student enrollment, a loss of scientific talent, and the closure of important research initiatives. The abrupt cancellation of research grants has disproportionately affected women, minorities, and early-career researchers.
The administration’s claim that these discretionary program cuts are essential for managing national debt does not hold up; the proposed savings from federal research and development ($33.7 billion out of $73 billion in total domestic discretionary cuts) are insignificant compared to the $445 billion increase for the Department of Defense.
The federal budget calendar
The federal fiscal year begins on October 1 and concludes on September 30 of the following year. Agencies start preparing their budget requests well in advance, including funds for daily operations, maintenance, research, staffing, and new program initiatives. They also request resources for substantial capital expenditures such as research vessels, satellites, and laboratories. A significant portion of the budgets for federal science agencies is allocated to universities, states, communities, and private enterprises for R&D or projects that enhance public health, safety, prosperity, and well-being. For instance, over 80% of the NIH budget is awarded in grants to external institutions.
These budgets are submitted in the preceding calendar year to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which uses them to draft a budget proposal based on the administration’s policies and priorities, which the President submits to Congress, typically early in the calendar year. The FY27 proposal was released in April.
As granted by the US Constitution, Congress holds the exclusive authority to authorize spending, or the “power of the purse.” It conducts hearings to review and amend the President’s budget, consolidating appropriations into 12 spending bills. This process is currently underway in Congress.
Congress must budget for mandatory spending required by law, such as Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ benefits, along with interest on the national debt and discretionary spending. This last category often sparks the most debate over balancing the budget versus increasing the debt, taxes versus spending, defense versus non-defense spending, and funding critical issues. Individual members add “earmarks” that allocate federal funds to specific projects or localities. Notably, this is the stage where Congress chose not to implement many of the administration’s proposed cuts to science and research in FY26.
During this budget resolution process, the House and Senate eventually agree on and pass joint spending bills, which are sent to the President for approval or veto. Once funding is enacted, OMB distributes funds to agencies for their budget execution. This process is conducted under the scrutiny of the Government Accountability Office and independent agency Inspectors General, although the Trump administration has illegally fired many of them. Despite the law specifying a timeline for each step in the budget process, including its passage before October 1, Congress frequently misses these deadlines, necessitating a continuing resolution or CR to keep the government running. Failing to do so could lead to a partial or complete government shutdown.
The FY27 budget hearings
The initial hearings on the President’s FY27 budget request with the House (4/15/26) and Senate (4/16/26) Budget Committees featured testimony from OMB Director Russell Vought. Much of his speech was derived directly from Project 2025. Instead of informing Congress or addressing their inquiries, Vought extolled the administration’s achievements, avoided transparency, claimed they were tackling waste, fraud, and abuse, deflected, denied, and misled, became combative when pressed for details, and blamed previous President Joe Biden. Additionally, Vought avoided specifics and refused to answer questions about ongoing expenses, supplementals, and deficit projections. When questioned about delaying, impounding, or repurposing FY26 funds already appropriated, he denied any wrongdoing by the administration, asserted their actions were legal, or claimed they had drafted a memo stating the law was unconstitutional. Other Trump officials at subsequent department and agency budget hearings adopted a similar evasive, confrontational, and misleading approach.
Science was not a central theme of the hearings, although specific programs that safeguard public safety, human health, the economy, and the environment received bipartisan support. Congress justified R&D investments as a means to maintain “America’s competitive edge” and “support everyday Americans.” Members are keenly aware of the importance of science agencies, programs, and staff in their communities, frequently citing issues or programs affecting their own states or districts. Many recognize the need to keep the US as a global leader in basic research and innovation. In their questioning, senators and representatives from both parties pressed administration officials about the impact of budget cuts on various science-based topics, including disease prevention and treatment, wildfire fighting and severe weather warnings, environmental monitoring and offshore wind development, and AI. Here are some key insights from the April budget hearings and the initial House appropriation bills.
The administration’s playbook is Project 2025
The FY27 budget heavily draws from the Project 2025 mandate. Both repeatedly reference the “failed leadership of the Biden administration,” ending the Green New Deal, eliminating “wasteful and ineffective spending,” and “fraud, waste, and abuse in foreign assistance funding.” They criticize science for its perceived “radical climate agenda” and “woke activities.” The actions and cuts recommended in President Trump’s budget closely align with those suggested in Project 2025. Independent science advisory boards are to be reset, green subsidies for infrastructure and energy-efficient appliances are to be ended, and climate science funding is to be eliminated. Data collection and observing systems, managed by agencies like NOAA and the EPA, should be transferred to the private sector. Federal functions and coordination should be shifted to states, and research to universities, without additional capacity, with administrative offices and research labs dispersed from Washington, DC.
Project 2025 specifically directs the government to dismantle NOAA, reorganize and streamline the EPA, consolidate the NSF, and eliminate DOI and DOE programs related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. It advocates for the “management” of national forests through increased timber harvests and the consolidation and streamlining of regulatory oversight of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. All these measures are included in the FY27 budget narrative or have been recently implemented through OMB-directed funding shifts and freezes. However, this extends beyond appropriations and budget cuts. These hearings indicate that the administration aims to implement Project 2025 with minimal Congressional approval or oversight.
Watch what they do, not what they say
In its FY26 and FY27 proposed budgets, the Trump administration has demonstrated a willingness to bypass constitutional and congressionally mandated safeguards and to misinterpret or ignore the law. It has delayed or withheld appropriated funds. For instance, by the end of March, NOAA had executed only 718 grant actions, compared to 2,696 for the same period last year. The administration attempted to dismantle NCAR partly because it “informs regulations on emissions that the administration does not support.” And it abruptly dismissed the entire NSF National Science Board without cause in April. Many of their destructive actions have been reversed only after being challenged in court. We can anticipate this conduct to persist in future budget cycles.
The power of the purse abides
Congress takes its constitutional authority over government spending seriously. There is genuine bipartisan resistance in the budget review and amendment process. Initial House markups for most science agencies are comparable to their FY26 funding levels, and the Senate generally shows even greater support for R&D budgets.
The May House markup restores slightly more than half of the proposed NSF cut. NASA exploration receives a $1.1 billion increase compared with 2026, though its science funding would still be reduced by $1.25 billion (versus the $3.3 billion requested by the President). Congress is also protecting several science missions proposed for cancellation and reigning in attempts to shift crewed deep space exploration to commercial providers. Over 90% of NOAA research funds have been restored in their markup.
Resistance is NOT futile: you have a role
The science conducted and supported by federal agencies saves lives, protects property, sustains vibrant businesses, enhances community safety, and fosters healthier ecosystems. However, the proposed federal budget cuts jeopardize these benefits, with long-term consequences. The loss of skilled researchers and their programs and institutional knowledge will be enduring.
While Republicans were not as vocal or critical in the budget hearings as their minority counterparts, both parties recognize the importance of federal science to the nation and will—like in 2025—defend it against White House attacks. They have mitigated much of the proposed damage to science, but a strong science-supportive atmosphere is still lacking on Capitol Hill, and we can fully expect the administration will attempt to cut science funding again as long as they remain in office. Much work remains to repair the damage to the nation’s science capacity and to sustain and accelerate funding for critical existing and new R&D programs. Here are actions you can take.
Contact your elected officials
Call or message your representatives and remind them of how you and your community depend on federal science agencies and the work they do and fund. Urge them to advocate for necessary research funding and support legislation like the Scientific Integrity Act, which safeguards scientific independence. Additionally, engage with your state, county, and municipal officials; their actions influence, and can trickle up to, the federal level.
Engage locally
Reach out to your local news media, encouraging them to report on how the administration’s actions impact science and your community. Share your experiences as a scientist or explain how their work benefits you through letters to the editor, commentaries, and social media. Attend local council and board meetings to voice support for local research labs, offices, and universities, and the federal resources they rely on.
Support scientific organizations
Many professional organizations and science advocacy groups, such as UCS, are speaking out and urging Congress to reject the administration’s harmful cuts and actions against science. Sign their letters and petitions.
Stay informed about the budget
Monitor Congressional budget deliberations and actions, and ensure your representatives advocate for and adequately fund science. You can track the status of federal science budgets. Here are the schedules for upcoming House markups and Senate appropriations.
Think long-term
Project 2025 laid the groundwork for this administration’s restructuring of our government. Our nation requires a new vision, one grounded in thought and logic, to rectify the damage inflicted. We must begin contemplating an alternative to Project 2025 that will guide the next administration, including how it will restore science to its rightful critical place in society. How will those involved in and benefiting from science inform future executive and legislative branches? What role will you play in shaping and creating the future of science? Now is the time to initiate these conversations with your colleagues and science advocates. It is incumbent upon us to work collectively and thoughtfully to not only rebuild but enhance a federal science enterprise that advances our health, safety, security, and well-being.
