An Uncertain Landscape for Science Funding

“Can the United States Retain Its Scientific Talent?” This was the question posed by a recent panel discussion organized by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation that the two of us participated in. The panel featured an expert discussion focused on ways to strengthen the U.S. research ecosystem, improve talent retention and ensure global leadership in research.

It was a timely conversation precipitated by the recent uncertainty surrounding federal research funding, which has led to fewer opportunities and less predictable career prospects for early-career researchers. The panel discussion, a recording of which is available to watch online, highlighted a few important themes that warrant additional discussion, including federal policy changes needed to bolster the research ecosystem, as well as to improve researcher recruitment and retention in U.S. academic laboratories in the long term.

Cuts to federal grant funding have had an acute impact on early-career scientists, who are traditionally well poised to drive research innovations in academic laboratories and to contribute to maintaining America’s edge as a global leader in scientific research. However, under current circumstances, these researchers are being recruited to other countries, leading to a significant U.S. science brain drain—which is already occurring and will continue.

The landscape for federal science funding is shifting in important ways. Focusing on two of the major federal science agencies, the National Science Foundation withheld $1.4 billion of its congressionally allocated research budget in fiscal year 2026 intended for research. This is just one of the ways in which the Trump administration is attempting to work around Congress. In contrast, the National Institutes of Health succeeded in spending its total budget in FY26, but did so in part by increasing the number of multiyear grants. While the NIH announced it had funded a record number of early-career researchers who were seeking their first grant, the shift toward multiyear grants resulted in fewer grants awarded over all.

This moment is also marked by the rise of different models of funding science, particularly at the NSF. The NSF X-Labs initiative is part of a broader funding realignment in which more federal dollars are being allocated to the NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships Directorate. These shifts in funding may change the trajectory of U.S. science toward more translational research. Currently, federal science agencies including NSF are having to comply with the administration’s directives for funding artificial intelligence and quantum computing, and diverting federal funds to these areas may negatively impact basic science research.

Basic science in universities is fundamental for making new discoveries and training the next generation of researchers. This type of research is serendipitous (as highlighted by the Golden Goose awards) and often generates more questions resulting from the initial line of inquiry, leading to exciting discoveries—many times by accident. There are numerous examples of impactful basic science, including the science underlying mRNA vaccines, GLP-1 weight-loss drugs and histotripsy, a cancer treatment that uses ultrasound.

Winners of the 2026 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine transformed channelrhodopsin, a protein found in a single-cell alga, into a light-controlled switch for nerve cells to better understand the brain—another example of fundamental science with important societal significance. These various examples illustrate how unexpected and valuable findings can arise from basic research projects. In that respect, fundamental research performed in universities is a public good.

We need to continue funding basic research and supporting current and future scientists in the U.S. regardless of where they come from. In this regard, recent immigration policies have also contributed to the science brain drain. For many generations, the best and brightest researchers have come from around the world to study and do research at U.S. institutions. But the cuts to research funding have led to decreases in Ph.D. admissions for international and domestic graduate students alike. In addition, the Association of American Universities recently reported a 15 percent decrease in new graduate admissions at major research universities from fall 2025 to fall 2026.

International students have also experienced unique challenges at the graduate level. These include a new rule, temporarily blocked by a federal court, that would impose fixed durations of status for graduate training, and a new proposal to levy up to $100,000 in fees for international students in STEM fields to work in the U.S. through the optional practical training program. Even before this occurred, a 2025 Nature article found that many early-career scientists from abroad were considering leaving the U.S. for research, with Europe and Canada as top destinations.

While scientists have been fighting back and speaking out against the current administration’s changing approach to science and scientists, the U.S. continues to pursue policies that create uncertainty in research career prospects and limit funding for basic science. This is a departure from the successful compact between research universities and the federal government that began with Vannevar Bush.

The U.S. is now at risk of losing our global leadership in science, as demonstrated by a report showing that China has surpassed the U.S. in research and development investments. This disinvestment has the potential to cede U.S. science leadership for a generation and further erode the very foundation of our nation’s economic growth and global competitiveness.