Congress Moves to Reject Deep Cuts to Science Agencies
Congress is poised to reject President Trump's proposed deep cuts to federal science agencies, opting instead to keep most research spending close to current levels as lawmakers move to finalize a package of three fiscal year (FY) 2026 appropriations bills. The "minibus" includes the Commerce-Justice-Science, Energy and Water Development, and Interior-Environment funding bills. The House passed the measure last week on a vote of 397-28, and the Senate is expected to take an initial procedural vote on the spending package this week.
Under the agreement negotiated by a panel of members from both chambers, the National Science Foundation (NSF) would see a 3.4% reduction, with its overall budget falling from $9.06 billion to $8.75 billion--far less than the 57% cut sought by the Administration. NSF's core research account would remain flat at $7.18 billion, while education programs would receive $938 million, down $180 million from last year but spared from elimination.
The legislation does not explicitly shield the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which the Administration has proposed to dismantle, but it does include language directing NSF to "provide a briefing, not later than 30 days after enactment of this act, on its facilities management and oversight plan for NSF-supported research and development centers and major scientific facilities across all disciplines." The bill further requires NSF to submit a report on this plan within 180 days.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would receive nearly flat funding of $6.12 billion (-0.2%), while the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would get a 2.3% increase to $1.18 billion, plus $660 million in earmarks to fund external projects, bringing its total to $1.85 billion (+60%).
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) science portfolio would receive $7.25 billion, a 1.1% decrease compared with this year, rather than the 47% cut proposed by the White House. NASA education programs would be funded at $143 million, unchanged from 2025. Overall, the space agency would receive $24.4 billion, a 1.6% cut relative to FY 2025.
At the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Science would see a roughly 2% increase, rising from $8.24 billion to $8.4 billion, despite the Administration's request for cuts exceeding $1 billion. Within the office, however, biological and environmental research would face a nearly 8% cut relative to FY 2025 enacted levels. Funding for DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) would drop to $350 million--down $110 million but well above the $200 million level proposed by Trump. Meanwhile, funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would decline from $3.4 billion to $3.1 billion, still far higher than the 74% cut sought by the White House.
Agencies within the Department of the Interior would also see relatively modest reductions. The U.S. Geological Survey's budget would decline 2.1% to $1.42 billion, with its Ecosystems Mission Area--targeted for elimination in the Trump request--funded at $295 million, a 1.6% decrease. The National Park Service (-2%), Bureau of Land Management (-2.5%), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (-1.6%) would likewise face small cuts, far short of the more than 30% reductions proposed by the Administration for each agency.
The Environmental Protection Agency's science and technology programs would dip 1.6% to $744 million--significantly less severe than the 34% cut sought by the Administration. Overall, the agency would see a 3.5% cut, much less than the 55% reduction proposed by the President.
The bills are expected to advance as a package as Congress works against a January 30 deadline to avert another government shutdown, with several major agencies still operating under a temporary funding freeze. Lawmakers previously passed another package with three full-year FY 2026 appropriations bills covering Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and Legislative Branch operations. They intend to move two additional minibus packages to complete the remaining six spending bills, including funding for the National Institutes of Health, before the deadline. If they fail to pass any of the bills, another continuing resolution would be required to prevent a partial shutdown.
NIH to Reconsider Halted Grant Applications After Legal Settlement
Following two legal settlements finalized in late December, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has agreed to re-review hundreds of grant applications that were frozen, denied, or withdrawn last year after being deemed inconsistent with Trump Administration directives affecting research areas such as transgender health and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Under the agreements, NIH will evaluate the applications "in good faith" using its standard review process and without applying the challenged directives, while not conceding any legal violations related to delayed or denied reviews.
According to Inside Higher Ed, at least 634 of 674 re-reviewed applications have already been approved. One settlement, brought by state attorneys general, covers more than 5,000 grant applications, while a separate case led by public health groups applies to roughly 400. The agreements establish firm decision deadlines extending into mid-2026 and require reconsideration even of proposals linked to rescinded funding opportunities.
Although researchers view the settlements as a meaningful step forward, many remain concerned about continued political interference and whether newly approved grants will proceed without disruption.
Separately, Senate Democrats led by Angus King (I-ME) last month sought to overturn a Department of Health and Human Services policy that allows certain rulemakings to be finalized without public comment. The resolution failed on a 50-50 vote, with the White House defending the policy as necessary for more flexible and efficient regulatory action. Together, the grant settlements and Senate debate highlight persistent tensions over transparency, process, and political influence at federal health agencies.
U.S. Withdraws from Global Climate Treaty and Green Climate Fund
President Trump has announced that the United States will withdraw from dozens of international organizations, including the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)--the foundational 1992 treaty underpinning global climate cooperation--and will also exit the Green Climate Fund, the world's largest multilateral climate finance mechanism.
The decisions represent a significant escalation of the Administration's effort to unwind U.S. participation in international climate institutions, which it argues constrain U.S. sovereignty and impose economic costs. Withdrawal from the UNFCCC--effective one year after formal notification--would make the United States the only nation to leave the treaty, which includes 198 parties and provides the legal foundation for the Paris Agreement. The Administration has also withdrawn from the Paris Agreement itself, a move that takes effect later this month.
In addition, the Administration said it will immediately abandon the Green Climate Fund, which has approved more than $19 billion for climate mitigation and adaptation projects in developing countries since 2015, and will relinquish the U.S. board seat. Critics warn the moves will weaken global climate cooperation and diminish U.S. leadership, while Administration officials say they free the country from what they describe as costly and ineffective international commitments.
Republican lawmakers have largely downplayed the significance of the withdrawals. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) said she was "not surprised" by the Administration's decision and argued Congress should focus on domestic environmental priorities rather than international agreements, adding, "We might as well focus on what we can control." Democrats sharply criticized the withdrawals, warning they would forfeit U.S. climate leadership and undermine global efforts to address rising emissions.
AIBS Joins Letter to the President in Support of NCAR
In response to the recently announced plans from the White House to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), AIBS has joined the American Meteorological Society and other scientific societies in sending a letter to President Trump expressing strong support for NCAR and the full breadth of scientific research undertaken by NCAR scientists.
"Sending various parts of NCAR to other cities will isolate expertise and reduce the synergies and enhanced productivity that results when people work together," the letter reads. "NCAR is an incredible resource and losing it would hurt the economic health of the nation and the safety of its people. A better option would be to work to maintain and strengthen NCAR, including through enhanced cooperation with Federal science agencies, academic institutions, and private sector researchers."
Read the full letter, which will also be shared with members of Congress.
AIBS Endorses Letter on Changes to US Childhood Immunization Schedule
In response to recent policy changes on the US childhood immunization schedule, AIBS joined the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases and 70 other scientific and medical organizations in a letter to the Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Assistant Secretary for Health urging them to reaffirm their commitment to a transparent, evidence-based immunization policy process that protects the health of children.
The comments read, in part: "Comparisons between the US childhood immunization schedule and those of other countries, including Denmark, risk overlooking fundamental differences in population size, diversity, healthcare access, and infectious disease burden. These differences matter. US immunization policy must be guided by a transparent, evidence-based process and grounded in US epidemiology and real-world risk."
Read the full letter.
Participate in the 2026 Congressional Visits Day
Join the American Institute of Biological Sciences on April 20-22, 2026 for our annual Congressional Visits Day in Washington, DC.
Meet with your members of Congress to help them understand the important role the federal government plays in supporting the biological sciences. Advocate for federal investments in biological sciences research supported by the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies.
Participants will complete a communications and advocacy training program provided by AIBS that prepares them to be effective advocates for their science. AIBS will provide participants with background information and materials, as well as arrange meetings with lawmakers on April 22.
Who should participate?
Scientists, graduate students, educators, or other biological science community members who are interested in advocating for scientific research and education are encouraged to participate in this important event.
The ideal participant will:
- Have an interest in science policy.
-
Work in a scientific profession or be enrolled in graduate school.
- Be able to speak about the importance of biological research funded by federal agencies (e.g. NSF, NIH, USDA).
- Provide compelling examples from their own experiences.
Training
The event includes a free, half-day training session on how to be an effective advocate for science policy. This training session will be held on April 21, 2026 and is mandatory for everyone who will be participating in congressional meetings.
Additionally, participants have the option to attend the highly acclaimed AIBS Communications Boot Camp for Scientists. This training course will be held in Washington, DC on April 20-21, 2026. This professional development program provides practical instruction and interactive exercises designed to help scientists (e.g. researchers, graduate students, administrators, educators) translate scientific information for non-technical audiences and to effectively engage with decision-makers and the news media. All participants who complete this optional training will receive priority access to the Congressional Visits Day and a certificate of completion indicating that they have successfully completed 16 hours of communications training.
Registration
Express your interest in participating in the event by registering. Registration closes on February 23, 2026. Space is limited and we encourage you to register early. If registrations exceed program capacity, AIBS may prioritize registrants based on participation in the boot camp training, geographic diversity, and other factors. Register now.
Apply for the AIBS & SURA Public Policy Fellowship
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) are jointly offering a paid Public Policy Fellowship in the spring-summer of 2026 for current and recent graduate students in the life sciences or a closely related field.
This unique training opportunity provides young scientists with valuable first-hand experience in science policy. The Fellow will have the opportunity to work on a range of science policy projects that could include planning a Capitol Hill science policy briefing, preparing science policy documents, conducting research on science and science education policy initiatives, and attending Congressional and executive branch meetings. The Fellow will work closely with AIBS and SURA policy staff to gain practical experience with science policy and advocacy efforts that inform federal decision-making.
Applicant must be a current graduate (M.S. or Ph.D.) student or within two years of completing a graduate degree in the life sciences or a closely related field, who has a strong interest in science policy. The Fellow will have the option to choose between a 10-week remote or a month-long in-person engagement in the spring-summer of 2026. The Fellow will receive a stipend, contingent on active participation, of a minimum of $3,000 for remote participation and a maximum of $6,000 for in-person participation.
Applications are due no later than 05:00 PM Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 28, 2026. Learn more about the opportunity and how to apply: https://io.aibs.org/policy-fellow
Short Takes
-
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is closing its largest research library at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD as part of broader staff, lab, and facility cuts, with many unique, largely undigitized holdings to be warehoused or discarded. The closure follows years of consolidation and significant workforce reductions and leaves only three NASA research libraries operating nationwide.
- A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court injunction blocking the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from imposing a flat 15% cap on indirect cost payments to universities, keeping current negotiated overhead rates in place pending any action by Congress or future rulemaking. The Administration has not said whether it intends to appeal the ruling.
-
The Trump Administration has declined to renew Walter Koroshetz's appointment as Director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), despite NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya's support. Koroshetz, who has led NINDS for a decade, will depart on January 24, leaving 14 of NIH's 27 institutes and centers without permanent leadership and heightening concerns about politicization and instability within the agency.
