Since January, scientists and universities in the US have faced interruptions in federal funding for research.
The research community experienced a tumultuous 2025. The Trump administration froze funding and halted key functions at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies. These decisions caused confusion and concern from researchers, clinicians, and patients alike. In response, these groups found unique ways to speak up and rally support for federally funded research.
On January 22, the Trump administration restricted several operations across the NIH including grant reviews, communications with external sources, travel, and hiring. One researcher called the actions “devastating” because of their halt to research functions. Another shared how the interruption to grant reviews left her in the dark on the status of a vital grant to her work. Scientists also expressed concern about the impacts of these delays on people participating in clinical trials and for early career researchers.
Less than a month after these federal freezes, the Trump administration proposed a 15 percent cap on indirect funding on NIH grants. As this came at the peak of graduate admission season, many universities announced that they were pausing or reducing their graduate admissions and hiring decisions because of uncertain funding for new students. The potential drop in graduate students left many scientists concerned about the future of research in their groups. Some also shared how these interruptions could have ripple effects beyond academia. “If graduate education is no longer funded by the federal government, the biomedical industry pipeline is dry,” said Kimberly Cooper, a developmental geneticist at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD).
The toll from lost funding also made an appearance at several conferences. At the American Association for Cancer Research, scientists highlighted how these cuts affected clinical trials and the patients relying on them. “Behind every delay, every cancellation, and every missed opportunity is someone whose life might depend on what we discover next,” said Monica Bertagnolli, a surgical oncologist and former NIH director. Researchers emphasized the need to continue to talk about these effects with communities.
As of mid-May of this year, the NIH and National Science Foundation had canceled more than 1.5 billion dollars in grants. In an effort to communicate the value of their research, academic researchers and university communication leaders at the University of California, Davis launched an initiative to highlight the value of research. Scientists explained their research and who it seeks to help—as well as what’s at stake if they lose funding—in videos available on the university’s website. This site also included financial breakdowns to demonstrate how federal funding fueled the local economy. Find out how this resource is helping to communicate the value of federally funded research.
The intricacies of academic funding are not front of mind for non-researchers, including the general taxpaying-public and policy makers, making it hard for them to understand the impacts of these cuts in their communities. To help bring these effects closer to home, a team of researchers created a visualization tool that tracks the economic loss to states and localities because of lost federal funding. The interactive map allows users to explore how much funding universities and colleges have lost. They can also see how future budget proposals will affect jobs and specific areas of research in their region.
In response to researchers losing federal funding and at risk of not being able to support their existing graduate students, the American Chemical Society pledged 2.5 million dollars to support 100 students to finish their degrees. These grants will help master’s or PhD students who were at risk of not completing their program because their advisor lost federal funding. Researchers, even those who did not have affected students, praised this decision and the society’s support for trainees.
Through the summer, several universities faced federal funding freezes following disagreements with the Trump administration. At the University of California, Los Angeles, public health scientist Patrick Allard shared how the loss of this financial support directly affects the lives of research trainees. He collected responses from several graduate students, sharing their reasons for pursuing research and concerns surrounding frozen funding. From first-generation students trying to turn dreams into realities to community-driven trainees hoping their work can help their hometowns, the statements put the personal toll that these decisions bring on display.
