📉 The Policy Landscape Behind the Disruptions

Upon returning to office in January 2025, the Trump administration swiftly introduced directives aimed at reshaping federal science funding priorities. These included executive orders targeting what officials described as 'politicized science,' with a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, certain public health research areas, and indirect cost reimbursements for universities. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest funder of biomedical research in the world with an annual budget exceeding $48 billion, became a primary target. Policies froze thousands of grants and proposed slashing the NIH budget by over 40% for fiscal year 2026, reducing it to levels not seen since the early 1990s when adjusted for inflation.

This shift created immediate uncertainty. Researchers, who rely on multi-year grants to sustain labs, personnel, and experiments, faced abrupt halts. For instance, the administration capped indirect costs—the overhead universities charge for facilities and administration—at 15%, down from negotiated rates averaging 42%. Although courts later blocked some changes, the mere threat led to hiring freezes and scaled-back operations at institutions nationwide. Understanding these policies requires grasping their intent: to redirect funds toward administration-defined priorities like chronic disease research over what was labeled as ideological pursuits, such as studies on vaccine hesitancy or health disparities.

• Executive orders on DEI bans affected grants reviewing hiring practices.
• Supplemental NIH guidance in February 2025 targeted infrastructure support.
• Government-wide layoffs reduced agency staff by 20%, slowing grant reviews.

These moves, while framed as efficiency measures, rippled through academia, prompting many principal investigators (PIs)—the lead scientists on grants—to reassess their trajectories. For early-career researchers, who often depend on NIH's high-risk, high-reward programs, the stakes were particularly high.

Scale of NIH Funding Disruptions and Grant Cancellations

The numbers paint a stark picture. In 2025, over 5,800 NIH grants were terminated or frozen, alongside nearly 2,000 at the National Science Foundation (NSF). This equated to billions in disrupted funding—estimates range from $29 billion initially affected to about $2 billion still in limbo by late 2025. New grant awards plummeted: NIH by 24% and NSF by 25% compared to prior averages. Clinical trials bore the brunt, with 383 studies halted, impacting 74,000 enrolled patients researching treatments for cancer, heart disease, and neurological conditions.

Fields like infectious diseases saw over 800 grants axed, including mRNA vaccine improvements worth $500 million. Chronic disease research funding dropped 16%, with Alzheimer's studies hit hardest. ProPublica documented at least 30 researchers forced to end clinical trials prematurely, discarding years of data and patient progress. One cancer researcher at a major university described shuttering a Phase II trial after their renewal was denied, laying off five technicians and pivoting to consulting.

Universities stepped in with 'bridge' funding at places like the University of Washington, but these are short-term patches. For many, the uncertainty eroded confidence, leading to project abandonment. As one PI noted, 'Science demands continuity; you can't pause a cell culture or mouse colony indefinitely.'

Leadership Vacuum at the NIH

The NIH's internal turmoil exacerbated funding woes. By December 2025, 13 of 27 institutes and centers lacked permanent directors—a nearly 50% vacancy rate. The agency started with three openings, then saw retirements, transfers, and firings amid 1,200 layoffs (6% of staff). Key voids hit the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and institutes for mental health and health disparities.

Directors, appointed for fixed terms, guide scientific agendas and approve billions in grants. Their absence delayed decisions, as interim leaders juggled workloads amid staff shortages. Recruitment rushed forward with unprecedented two-week deadlines, raising fears of politicized hires over expertise. Former director Jeremy Berg highlighted how this disrupts long-term planning, with funding now potentially tied to shifting agency priorities via new contract clauses.

For researchers, this meant prolonged review cycles—some grants waited months—amplifying the chaos from cuts. Programs like MOSAIC, aiding underrepresented postdocs' transition to faculty roles, were terminated outright, stalling careers.

Researchers Abandoning Projects and Fields

Personal stories underscore the human cost. At Columbia University, nearly 1,500 grants were frozen, prompting pauses in hiring and spending. Cancer researchers grappled with slashed renewals; one duo interviewed by Cancer Therapy Advisor detailed ending studies on novel therapies after ProPublica revealed grants were axed despite court blocks.

Early-career scientists suffered most. NIH funded 364 high-risk grants in 2025's first nine months, down from 406 in 2024. Many PIs switched fields— from public health to private biotech—or left academia. Surveys showed 40% of US researchers contemplating relocation, with 75% in a Nature poll considering exits. Examples include a UW-Madison team dropping a brain imaging project after 17% funding drop, and Harvard-linked neuroscientists eyeing Europe.

• Cancer clinical trials halted mid-phase.
• Vaccine hesitancy studies discarded.
• DEI-focused career programs ended.

This abandonment risks innovation pipelines, as labs dissolve and expertise dissipates.

Ripple Effects on US Scientific Enterprise

Beyond grants, doctoral enrollment dipped one-third at some schools, international students fell 17% due to visa fears. Over 25,000 science personnel exited agencies, with EPA and FDA hit hardest. Economic models project 70,000 job losses from indirect cost caps alone.

Universities in New York and Massachusetts saw outsized impacts, fueling regional brain drains. Yet, some positives emerged: boosted cancer ($128M) and Alzheimer's ($100M) funding in final bills signaled targeted support.

Emerging Brain Drain and Global Competition

Foreign nations capitalized. Europe offered 'safe haven' grants, Canada ramped recruitment, and Australia targeted US talent. A Chemistry World survey found US researchers four times likelier to eye moves than peers elsewhere. While some stayed, the trend threatens US leadership—China surged in publications amid US stumbles.

Explore research jobs adapting to these shifts via AcademicJobs.com.

🎯 Congressional Intervention and Funding Stabilization

Congress rebuffed extremes: FY2026 NIH budget hit $48.7B (+$415M), NSF trimmed 3.4%, NASA science 1.1%. Courts reinstated 3,000+ grants via suits from 22 states and ACLU. By early 2026, spending normalized somewhat, though 5-10% fewer projects funded.

This bipartisan defense—House and Senate Republicans joined Democrats—offers breathing room, but experts warn of persistent politicization.

Photo by Andriy Miyusov on Unsplash

Strategies for Researchers in Uncertain Times

To thrive, diversify funding: pivot to NSF, private foundations, or industry. Build international collaborations for stability. Early-career tips include 'bridge' grants from universities or tailored resumes for global roles.

• Seek postdoc positions with stable funding.
• Leverage academic CV advice.
• Rate experiences on Rate My Professor to inform peers.

For jobs, visit higher-ed jobs and university jobs. Share your story in comments below.

Read more on Nature's 2025 science review or STAT's NIH mapping.