Trump’s 2026 Budget: Deep Cuts to Science and Competitiveness

On May 2, 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delivered an outline of President Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget to Senator Susan Collins (R–Maine), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The proposal calls for sweeping reductions in federal research spending, encompassing agencies that support basic science, public health, environmental monitoring, and higher education. By targeting nearly every major federal science agency, these cuts risk undermining U.S. leadership in innovation, jeopardizing the nation’s ability to compete in key technology sectors such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and clean energy.

Key Science Agency Cuts

• National Institutes of Health (NIH): A proposed $18 billion reduction (–37%), consolidating 27 institutes into five. Lab overhead reimbursements would fall from 30% to 15%, triggering campus-wide hiring freezes and facility closures.
• National Science Foundation (NSF): A 55% cut in base funding. Programs in climate science, social and behavioral research, and minority participation would be eliminated, while AI and quantum computing receive minimal increases.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): A $3.6 billion (–37%) cut by shuttering centers specializing in chronic disease, environmental health, injury prevention, and global health preparedness.
• Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science: A $1.1 billion (–15%) cut, including elimination of climate-related R&D and a $2.6 billion reduction in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): A $1.3 billion (–20%) cut, targeting climate-monitoring instruments on weather satellites and defunding the Climate Program Office.

Partisan Rationale and Ideological Language

The justification sections read less like budget analyses and more like political manifestos. Phrases such as “woke science,” “dangerous ideologies,” and “environmental alarmism” appear repeatedly, accusing researchers of peddling “scams” rather than evidence-based findings. For example, the document claims NIH “misled the public” by not endorsing the lab-leak theory of SARS-CoV-2, despite a lack of conclusive data. Similarly, NSF’s social science grants are labeled “low priority” or “radical leftist,” while NIST’s Circular Economy Program is denounced for “advancing a radical climate agenda.”

Immediate Impacts on Research Infrastructure

Experts warn that slashing indirect cost rates from 30% to 15% on grants could force universities to absorb tens of millions of dollars in unreimbursed expenses annually. Dr. Maria Thompson, Vice President for Research at Midwest State University, notes, “Without adequate overhead, core facilities—mass spectrometers, clean rooms, HPC clusters—will shut down, and personnel layoffs will follow.” The Association of American Universities projects that 40% of U.S. academic research labs would scale back or close entirely.

Section: Impact on AI and Quantum Computing R&D

While NSF earmarks minimal funding increases for AI and quantum computing, the overall environment remains hostile. Advanced AI labs rely on collaborative grants spanning multiple disciplines—data science, cognitive psychology, cybersecurity—that face elimination under the new budget. Quantum computing research at DOE’s national labs would also suffer: Los Alamos, Sandia, and Oak Ridge anticipate reductions in qubit development and superconducting material studies. According to Dr. Alan Chen, a quantum physicist at CalTech, “Fragmented funding streams will hinder progress on error-correction protocols and scalable architectures, delaying potential breakthroughs by years.”

Section: Consequences for Global Competitiveness

China’s Ministry of Science and Technology recently unveiled a five-year plan boosting R&D investment by 20% annually, focusing on semiconductors, 6G telecommunications, and biotech. By contrast, the U.S. proposal undermines its lead in areas like CRISPR gene editing and climate modeling. A 2024 report from The Brookings Institution warns that sustained U.S. science cuts could cede technological leadership to Europe and Asia, with national security implications for defense systems that rely on advanced materials and AI-enabled autonomy.

Section: Long-Term Economic and Workforce Effects

Reducing education and workforce-development programs compounds the harm. The proposed elimination of GEAR UP and Federal Work-Study, combined with cuts to Pell Grants and graduate fellowships, would shrink the STEM talent pipeline. Economic modeling by OECD indicates that every dollar cut from higher education yields a $1.50 reduction in GDP growth over a decade. Minority-serving institutions, such as Howard University, risk severe budget shortfalls, jeopardizing diversity in science and technology fields.

Outlook and Congressional Response

Congressional leaders from both parties have publicly criticized the severity of the cuts. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D–NH), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, called the proposal “a significant threat to our national health and security.” The House Science Committee has scheduled hearings for late May to review testimony from agency directors and university presidents. Observers expect bipartisan efforts to restore much of the science funding, but face challenges amid wider spending reforms and debt-ceiling negotiations.

As debate intensifies, the fate of U.S. research infrastructure—and its role in maintaining global scientific leadership—hangs in the balance. Stakeholders urge close attention to the budget reconciliation process and continued advocacy to ensure that science and innovation remain national priorities.