A critical committee of the US Senate has indicated it will reject the significant budget cuts proposed by President Donald Trump for several science agencies, most notably the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA. The Senate Committee on Appropriations was scheduled to vote on July 10, 2023, to advance a funding bill for the fiscal year 2026, but discussions were halted due to a disagreement regarding the location of a new headquarters for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
This development marks a pivotal moment as the US Congress, which holds the power to approve government spending, appears poised to disregard Trump’s proposed budget cuts. If enacted, these cuts would have severely impacted US scientific research, with an analysis from the American Association for the Advancement of Science suggesting a potential reduction of federal funding for basic research by one-third.
Senators have been actively advocating for the protection of funding for research agencies in recent weeks. The Senate committee’s bill now proposes a mere 0.67% decrease in the NSF budget, a stark contrast to the 57% cut requested by Trump. Most notably, many NASA space and Earth-science missions would continue instead of facing shutdowns. Senator Jerry Moran, a Republican from Kansas, emphasized the importance of the bill, stating, “This bill protects key science missions.”
To become law, this funding bill must gain approval from the full Senate, as well as the lower chamber, the House of Representatives, before being signed by the president. Notably, this legislation is distinct from funding for other science agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health. Additionally, it is separate from the recently enacted “Big Beautiful Bill,” which encompasses tax and spending measures.
During Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021, Congress largely maintained funding for research despite the president’s proposed cuts. Nonetheless, there are concerns that the current administration may choose to ignore a budget that supports scientific agencies. Recently, the White House has reduced government spending by laying off thousands of federal workers, including scientists, and has retracted Congressionally-allocated funds for the current fiscal year.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the Senate bill, there is a sense of “cautious optimism,” according to Kenny Evans, a science-policy expert at Rice University in Houston, Texas. He remarked that a bipartisan commitment to science budgets would represent a significant victory.
The proposed budget cuts aimed at the NSF were particularly alarming, as the agency funds approximately 25% of federally-supported basic research at US universities. Under Trump’s plan, the NSF budget would have plummeted from USD 9 billion to just USD 3.9 billion. This drastic reduction would have resulted in the NSF being able to award only about one-quarter of its current research grants, significantly lowering the success rate for applicants from around 26% to merely 7%.
Furthermore, critical projects like the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which detects gravitational waves from cosmic events, would have faced severe operational limitations.
The depth of the proposed cuts was surprising to many observers, aligning closely with a 2023 proposal from a right-wing organization led by Russell Vought, now director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. The administration has framed the cuts as a necessary refocusing of investments towards priority areas such as quantum science and artificial intelligence, even as funding for these sectors remained largely unchanged.
At NASA, Trump’s budget plan aimed to slash the agency’s science budget nearly in half, potentially resulting in the cancellation of more than 40 projects, including vital Earth-observing satellites and future space telescopes. This proposal faced significant backlash from former NASA science chiefs, who criticized the cuts in a letter to Congress dated July 1, 2023. John Grunsfeld, a former astronaut and head of NASA’s science division from 2012 to 2016, warned that slashing NASA’s science budget would “cede leadership to other countries.” He expressed cautious optimism that the Senate would ensure adequate funding for NASA science but remained concerned about the overall implications for US leadership in scientific research.
As the Senate committee prepares for further discussions, the fate of science funding in the United States hangs in the balance, with ongoing advocacy from scientists, advocacy groups, and concerned citizens likely to play a crucial role in shaping the outcome.
