Budget cuts and shifting funding priorities will reduce opportunities for early-career researchers in the USA.
The first months of the second Trump administration have been marked by turmoil and uncertainty for researchers in the USA. Presidential executive orders have directed key funding agencies to drastically and rapidly cut staff, restructure departments and change funding priorities. The implementation of these orders has been chaotic, with funding and review processes halted and restarted with little notice and existing grants being rescinded. The legality of several executive orders related to the firing of federal employees and the ending of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives have been challenged, with their outcomes pending as the cases make their way through the judicial system.
Credit: Mbell/Getty images
The long-term picture is less clear. The White House’s proposed budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), some of the world’s largest funders of basic science and biomedical sciences, respectively, have been earmarked for budget reductions of more than 40% each in the 2026 fiscal year1. While the final budget allocations will be negotiated and funded by Congress, the funding situation looks bleak. On 25 April, the NSF director Sethuraman Panchanathan resigned2, seemingly in response to these cuts.
The repercussions of these funding decisions are likely to echo beyond the four years of this administration. Supporting a robust and diverse cohort of early-career researchers is vital for nurturing the next generation of scientists, bringing greater diversity into the field and generating fresh perspectives. However, reduced funding and research opportunities have already impacted early-career researchers at the undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral levels. Without support for future researchers, the USA will not sustain the level of scientific output it currently maintains as these researchers may leave academia — particularly those from marginalized groups.
Both the NIH and NSF have cancelled or curtailed support for popular initiatives designed to give undergraduates summer research experience outside their own university. The NIH Summer Internship Program, which typically selects around 1,200 students for hands-on research at its campuses each summer, has been cancelled for 2025 without explanation, after some students had already been accepted. The NSF’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) programme typically hosts thousands of researchers at hundreds of universities across the country. REU sites around the country were forced to cancel their summer programmes as funding was pulled back by the NSF3. These programmes have long been a pipeline to further graduate research — letting undergraduates experience research and programmes outside their own university.
Options for graduate researchers have also been affected. The prestigious NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) has also been curtailed. The GRFP fully funds a graduate student for three years of their PhD studies, covering both tuition fees as well as a stipend for living expenses, making them highly desirable for both students and their departments. The NSF recently awarded only 1,000 GRFP recipients for 20254, whereas it has in recent years awarded as many as 2,500 recipients across all fields.
Changing funding priorities have also affected postdoctoral researchers aspiring to faculty positions. The Maximizing Opportunities for Scientific and Academic Independent Careers (MOSAIC) K99 Postdoctoral Career Award was established in 2020 to enable promising postdoctoral researchers with diverse backgrounds to start independent research careers and enhance diversity and equity in biomedical research — goals specifically banned via executive order. K99 recipients receive US$100,000–US$250,000 per year over 5 years to support their salary and launch independent research labs. Now, the MOSAIC grant programme has been cancelled, with current grant recipients notified that funding will end immediately.
Research and funding opportunities such as these are vital for supporting early-career researchers and growing the next generation of scientists. Without sufficient funding, scientists will possibly not be able to continue their research or careers in the USA.
Some researchers may be able to find support outside the country. Various international funders have already put plans into place. In a speech on 7 April, Max Planck Society president Patrick Cramer announced the Max Planck Transatlantic Program to strengthen collaborations with US institutions, and the recently launched Max Planck Postdoc Program is geared towards the academic training of recent international graduates at Max Planck institutes. The European Commission has announced a €500 million investment in its “Choose Europe” policy initiative to attract and support research in Europe. However, not all scientists are willing or able to move abroad, and programmes such as these will not solely be able to account for the numbers of scientists displaced by funding cuts, if these 40% or more reductions come to fruition. And as burgeoning talent is lost to other countries, the brain drain of early-career researchers will negatively impact the long-term status of the USA in the global research community.
It is imperative to rally against these measures and support these early-career researchers in this uncertain funding climate. Scientists and scientific societies have voices. If they find that these cuts are beyond the pale, then they should be prepared to use their voices to push back against the proposed cuts. An alternative where US scientific prestige and the talent pool of future scientific researchers are lessened is not in the best interests of the country.
