The Appropriations Rollercoaster: Which Sciences Won and Lost?

Written by SNAP members Brendon Davis and Becca Blyn

Edited by Sneha Rao

On May 2, 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the initial version of the President’s proposed budget appropriations for fiscal year 2026 (FY26). This proposal rocked the science world with drastic slashes for numerous federal agencies, including a 40% cut to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a 57% cut to the National Science Foundation (NSF), and a 34% cut to the science and technology budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In one document, the nation’s longstanding support for science was suddenly put into question. This started a year-long budget rollercoaster that featured the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, numerous constituency advocacy events, and endless committee hearings, resulting in the final spending bills being passed nearly four months late. As this chaos settles and we wait for the President’s FY27 budget proposal, we take a look back at the FY26 appropriations rollercoaster.

The Appropriations Rollercoaster

The big drop - Spring 2025

The federal appropriations process begins with the President’s Budget Request (PBR), released by the White House each spring. Though not legally binding, it serves to inform Congress of the President’s priority programs/agencies and sets the tone for appropriations conversations. It is accepted that the final budget will likely not resemble the PBR, so the PBR’s main role is to communicate the President’s governing agenda. In some ways, that makes the PBR mostly toothless (and Congress went on to diverge from much of the PBR this year), but in other ways, it can hold real power and foreshadow actions the President may take outside budget negotiations. The release of the PBR for FY26, with its proposed cuts to scientific research programs and grants, shocked the scientific community.

Going fast - Spring & Summer 2025

If there was a silver lining to the PBR, it reinvigorated advocacy for scientific funding. Numerous professional societies went to Capitol Hill (e.g., ASBMB, AIBS, IEEE [1-3]), science influencers spoke out on social media, and SNAP led the McClintock Letters and Congressional District Visits initiatives to speak to communities and representatives about the importance of science funding. In all the anxiety about the future of science, many bright lights shone through in the realms of science communication and advocacy.

Loop-de-loops till the end - Fall & Winter 2025-2026

September 2025 saw the appropriations process escalate as the end of the fiscal year approached. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees largely chose to make smaller cuts to science than the President proposed, but disagreement over major aspects of the budget remained, particularly related to healthcare subsidies. On October 1, the government shut down for what would become the longest shutdown in U.S. history, lasting 43 days. The government was reopened in November by a continuing resolution, an agreement to maintain FY25 funding levels until the new year. During this window, budget conversations continued and some of the individual committee appropriations bills were passed. Following a brief partial shutdown beginning on February 1, 2026, the remaining budgets were passed on February 3. The exception to this is the budget for the Department of Homeland Security, which as of writing this has still not passed. These budgets will stand until September 30, 2026, when the current fiscal year ends and new budgets must be approved.

How did science budgets fare during the appropriations process?

The PBR set a bleak outlook for scientific funding in FY26. However, most agencies saw little to no change in their budgets compared to FY25. While this is not necessarily the desired outcome, it is a significant improvement over the PBR’s proposed cuts. Below, we discuss a sampling of scientific agencies and whether they won, lost, or came out net neutral in the appropriations rollercoaster.

Winners

AI Measurement and Standardization (National Institute of Standards and Technology)

One of the only federal science agencies to receive a moderate increase in funding in FY26 was the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [4]. NIST is primarily responsible for setting nationwide standards and frameworks that are adhered to by federal and private scientists and officials; this includes projects focused on cybersecurity, satellite calibration, and strengthening private industry and manufacturing companies. The FY26 budget for NIST includes an increase for its research program as well as $55 million for AI research and measurement programs [5]. $10 million will go towards expansion of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, which is featured in the Trump Administration’s AI plan [6] and would focus on developing guidelines to measure and evaluate AI models within the federal government. This preservation and mild expansion of NIST’s budget by Congress represents increasing government interest in AI development.

Indirect cost rates

Early after taking office, President Trump attempted to institute a 15% cap on indirect cost rates across multiple agencies [7]. These indirect costs are used by universities for costs associated with research that cannot be assigned to a specific project or grant, such as rent for laboratory buildings, utility payments, and access to libraries. Advocates across the sciences pointed out how the proposed 15% cap, which would have been a significant cut for most universities, would directly inhibit scientific research [8]. Across multiple FY26 appropriations bills for scientific agencies, Congress rejected the administration’s cuts and codified the existing indirect cost rates, ensuring that universities will continue to receive this funding at their agreed-upon rates. The bill text did encourage agencies to explore new indirect cost models, such as the Joint Association Group’s Financial Accountability in Research (FAIR) model [9].

Losers

The Environment (Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency)

The overall scientific budgets for the Department of Energy (DOE) and the EPA were not cut as much as proposed by the PBR, with DOE’s Office of Science receiving a modest 1.9% increase [10] and EPA’s Science and Technology Office being cut by 1.6% [11]. However, the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy had its budget cut by 10.4%, with significant reductions to the budgets for non-coal-based energy sources like solar and wind. Interestingly, the appropriations bill did provide some increases to funding for water power and geothermal technology. At the EPA, some research areas within the Science and Technology Office were cut more heavily than the office as a whole, and the Superfund, which provides financial support for efforts to find and clean up hazardous/contaminated sites, was cut by almost 50%. These funding cuts are made more devastating by the fact that the Trump Administration has prioritized investing in fossil fuel production and rolling back environmental regulations and clean energy initiatives [12, 13].

STEM Education (National Science Foundation)

The NSF funds a significant amount of basic STEM research and education initiatives, which have been deprioritized by the current administration, as evidenced by the PBR’s astounding 57% cut. Congress’s final budget bill cut NSF funding by only 3.4% [11]. However, the NSF Directorate for STEM Education budget was cut by 20%, which will likely negatively impact the NSF’s education initiatives at the K-12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. Already this year, we have seen an increase in the number of NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) applications “returned without review,” meaning that the applications did not reach the outside reviewer screening stage [14]. Furthermore, last year the GRFP stopped accepting applications from second-year graduate students and cut the number of awards by half [15, 16]. The fact that the Directorate for STEM Education’s budget has been further cut this year suggests that more cuts may be coming to the prestigious GRFP.

Net neutral

Biomedical research (National Institutes of Health)

The NIH has seen massive changes proposed to its operations since the start of the second Trump Administration, and the PBR’s 40% cut would have significantly slowed critical biomedical research progress. Likely swayed by massive advocacy efforts from scientists across the country, Congress voted to essentially maintain NIH funding at the previous year’s levels, with a small 0.9% increase for FY26 [17]. While this level of funding is a “win” compared to the original proposed cut of 40%, with inflation and rising costs of research, it ends up amounting to a small cut to the NIH.

The PBR also asked the NIH to increase the number of “multi-year” awards, in which grants are funded fully during the first year rather than receiving funds during each year of the project [18]. An increase in grants funded in this manner would reduce the total number of grants that can be awarded in a year due to budgetary limits [19]. Congress acted to limit the proportion of multi-year awards to FY25 levels. Nonetheless, FY25 levels were higher than previous years and will likely still reduce the total number of grants awarded this year [18]. In addition, although Congress pushed back on the administration’s proposed cuts, the NIH still has the power to decide which and how many grants to fund. Researchers are raising the alarm that calls for new grant applications have been delayed to such an extent that research programs may miss out on funding until next year, and a large number of grants have been cut or left unreviewed in the past year due to priorities that did not align with the administration [20]. Of immediate concern, the OMB had not yet approved the NIH to spend its research funding as of the end of February, despite the appropriations bill being signed into law at the beginning of the month [21].

Space Discovery (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

The PBR proposed slashing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) budget by 24%, a cut that was rejected by Congress. Instead, NASA’s funding was cut by only 1.6%, and some Science Mission Directorates (Astrophysics, Heliophysics) as well as the Orion Program (which will support deep space exploration) even received increased budgets [10]. Importantly, NASA also received almost $10 billion in funding over the next six years from H.R. 1 (AKA the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) last year, largely supporting the Artemis missions to restart human landings on the moon [22, 23].

Applied Defense Research (Department of Defense)

The Department of Defense (DOD) funds scientific research programs at universities across the country, and is the second largest source of biomedical research funding behind the NIH. Yet, the PBR sought to cut both basic and applied research funding by 15-20%. Congress’s final budget bill ended up cutting basic science research funding by 4.9% but increased applied research funding by 15.4% [24]. Further, Congress allocated $1.3 billion for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), which supports research relevant to service members and veterans. Just last year, CDMRP’s funding was cut by 57%, so this FY26 bill restores funding to levels similar to FY24.

Takeaways

The last year saw tumultuous budget negotiations only for many agency budgets to land close to where they had the year before, meaning the historically bipartisan support of scientific research has held (albeit more precariously). Members of Congress have incentives to fund science, whether that is because their district receives research funding, because they are driven by American technological competitiveness, or because their constituents pressure them to value scientific and medical progress. The effort put into letter writing and Capitol Hill meetings by advocacy organizations, professional societies, and individuals was ultimately realized in a final budget that excluded most of the PBR’s cuts to science.

Just because science was largely funded in this budget does not mean that science went unscathed. Beyond the serious cuts to renewable energy projects and STEM education, the FY26 budget saw the institutionalization of the end of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID (which had been effectively dissolved by the White House without congressional approval last summer and is now no longer recognized by the budget). More broadly, the government’s messaging around science has destabilized the enterprise. Scientific careers are built on years of sustained research and funding. When that is put into question, scientists pursue less ambitious projects, young researchers second-guess their careers, and fewer opportunities are made available for individuals to enter into the field. That is why the US saw scientists being recruited to other countries as “scientific refugees” last summer [25], and many universities paused hiring practices until their funding could be assured [26]. Even as the final budget this year has assuaged some concerns, we may face a similar problem soon in the messaging for FY27.

Other actions may be taken by the Executive Branch to slow science even with continued funding. Despite the fact that the FY26 budget bills have been passed, the spending at the NIH, NSF, and NASA has decreased because the White House OMB has delayed the release of their appropriated funds [21]. The refusal to disburse funds should be met with outspoken bipartisan opposition, and it is up to continued pressure from science advocacy organizations and individuals to ensure that appropriated funding is used and research momentum is maintained.

What comes next?

Although funding bills for these agencies were passed approximately one month ago, it is already time to gear up for another appropriations season. The President’s FY27 budget request could be released at any moment, as it is technically required by law to be submitted by the first Monday in February. Experts predict that the FY27 PBR will likely contain cuts to STEM funding. It is unclear if the large amount of science advocacy and overall rejection of the FY26 PBR will push the administration to avoid proposing such devastating cuts to science this year.

What is clear is that organizing and public pressure are incredibly effective in encouraging Congress to reject drastic cuts to STEM funding and programs. In addition to SNAP’s own efforts, including the McClintock Letters campaign and our Congressional District Visits, scientific organizations and foundations across the country and across disciplines mobilized to advocate for science. Although congressional representatives are often supportive of science, without this targeted advocacy, it seems likely that the scientific research community would have been hit much harder.

In the coming year, it is critical that scientists remember that their voices matter and do not grow fatigued in this fight for funding. In fact, we encourage scientists to advocate for increased funding for STEM research and education in FY27; although keeping funding flat is better than allowing budgetary slashes, it ultimately results in an effective cut due to inflation and rising costs. With sufficient government funding, the ambitious research that has long been valued in the U.S. can continue to rapidly propel science and technology forward. Scientific research impacts every stage of Americans’ daily lives, and we need to remind our elected representatives of that fact and of the critical importance of funding scientific endeavors.

Recognition:

Brendon Davis is a Ph.D. candidate at Johns Hopkins University studying DNA replication and epigenetics in stem cells. He also serves as the President of the Science Policy and Diplomacy Group at Johns Hopkins.

Becca Blyn is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Washington studying the immune response to malaria in the liver and ways to improve malaria vaccine efficacy.

Special thanks to fellow SNAP members who provided feedback on this blog: Jordan Williams, a pharmacology Ph.D. candidate studying how to alter the lung’s innate immune responses to better treat chronic respiratory diseases, and Sneha Rao, a leader of the Science Policy Group at UCSF and a developmental biology Ph.D. candidate studying how an embryo prepares for implantation in the uterus.

The Appropriations Rollercoaster: Which Sciences Won and Lost?

Recognition:

References:

About

Contact