NSF Slated For 23% Cut in House Spending Bill
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) has advanced its draft of the upcoming fiscal year's spending bill to the full Appropriations Committee. The proposal would provide $7 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF), a 23% cut from fiscal year (FY) 2025 enacted levels. While less severe than the President's proposed 57% reduction, it represents a significantly deeper cut than the Senate's proposed 0.7% decrease.
The bill maintains overall funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) but cuts NASA's Office of Science by 18%. The budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be cut by 6%, while the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) would receive an 11% boost.
Within the NSF budget, House appropriators propose $6.4 billion for Research and Related Activities (R&RA) and support the White House's plan to move the STEM Education Directorate into the R&RA account, though they do not specify a funding level for it. In contrast, the Senate bill would allocate $1 billion for STEM education--a 15% cut--while keeping it as a separate account.
Report language from both chambers is broadly supportive of STEM workforce development. Senate appropriators explicitly endorse NSF's Faculty Early Career Development, Graduate Research Fellowship, and Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) programs, noting they were "dismayed to hear about the cancellation of numerous REU programs during 2025."
Republicans on the panel praised the CJS funding bill for "rightsizing" government agencies, while Democratic lawmakers argued the bills will undercut America's "scientific supremacy" in the world. The bill reflects deeper cuts to science than its Senate counterpart, which advanced earlier this month and keeps funding largely at FY 2025 levels, but contains smaller reductions than President Trump requested in his budget.
The full House Appropriations Committee markup of the CJS bill, originally scheduled for July 24, has been postponed until after the House returns from recess in September.
House Appropriators Approve Small Bump for DOE Office of Science
The House Appropriations Committee advanced its Energy and Water Development spending bill for fiscal year (FY) 2026 in a 35-27 party-line vote.
The bill provides $8.4 billion for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science--a nearly 2% increase over current levels--rejecting the President's proposed 14% cut. However, it calls for a 12% reduction in biological and environmental research within the office. The bill also proposes steep cuts to clean energy programs, slashing funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 46% and for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) by 24%.
Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) is holding up the Senate's Energy-Water appropriations bill over his push for deeper spending cuts--particularly to renewable energy programs--than what was agreed upon by committee leaders. Although Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) negotiated a 3% funding increase over current levels, Kennedy is calling for a 3% cut instead. The resulting standoff has delayed the bill's release and markup, potentially derailing its progress before the August recess.
EPA Announces Layoffs, Restructuring
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to eliminate its Office of Research and Development (ORD) and implement a reduction in force (RIF) as part of a broader reorganization aimed at cutting costs and streamlining operations. The agency anticipates this move would save about $750 million. Preceded by an earlier RIF for the environmental justice divisions, the new round of layoffs was given the green light by the Supreme Court decision favoring President Trump's downsizing plans for the federal workforce.
ORD--EPA's independent research arm--employed over 1500 staff at the start of this year. In addition to RIF notices, EPA plans to extend a deferred resignation to ORD employees. Reassignment discussions have been ongoing since March, when plans to eliminate the ORD first leaked. EPA now intends to replace ORD with a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, which will report directly to Administrator Lee Zeldin and assume responsibility for the agency's research efforts.
While the exact number of layoffs is unclear, the agency has already received over 3,200 applications for early retirement or resignation. Collectively, these efforts are expected to shrink EPA's total workforce to approximately 12,500 employees, down from over 16,000 in January. This reduction reflects the dismissal or voluntary departure of 23% of EPA employees since the start of President Trump's second term.
Congress Pushes Back on Deep Cuts to Interior, EPA
Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have advanced their respective fiscal year (FY) 2026 funding bills for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), proposing smaller cuts--and in some cases, increases--compared to the President's budget request.
In the House, considerably less severe funding cuts are proposed for the Bureau of Land Management (-8% vs. -32%), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (-6.5% vs. -32%), the U.S. Geological Survey (-5.6% vs. 39%), and the National Park Service (-6% vs. -37%) compared to the President's request. The USGS Ecosystems Mission Area, slated for termination in the President's proposal, would shrink by 3%. The Smithsonian Institution is slated to receive $961 million (-12%), roughly $2 million more than the President's request.
The Senate has adopted a more generous approach: USGS is looking at a 2.4% increase, with its Ecosystems Mission Area slated for a nearly 3% boost. The National Park Service is looking at a 2% cut, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is facing a 1% cut, and the Bureau of Land Management is slated for a nearly 3% cut. The Smithsonian Institution would face a 4% reduction, although funding for the National Museum of Natural History would remain flat.
The U.S. Forest Service, targeted for a 75% reduction in the President's proposal, would see nearly level funding in the House (-0.2%) and a 1% increase in the Senate.
For the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the House has proposed a budget of $7 billion (-23%) in FY 2026, while the Senate has proposed a total of $8.6 billion (-5%). EPA's Science & Technology account would be cut by 31% in the House and by roughly 2% in the Senate. In contrast, the President has proposed slashing EPA's budget by 55% and shrinking its science account by 34%.
Notably, the Senate bill pushes back on the Administration's efforts to dismantle EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), directing the agency to "immediately halt" any closures, reductions, or reorganizations of the office and maintain adequate staffing. "The Committee is appalled that the Agency has announced the imminent closure of ORD," the bill report states.
USDA to Relocate 2,600 DC Jobs, Close Major Research Facilities
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will relocate more than half of its Washington, DC-based workforce to five regional hubs--Raleigh, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Fort Collins, and Salt Lake City--as part of a sweeping, multi-year reorganization, Secretary Brooke Rollins announced.
The plan includes the phased closure of key USDA research facilities, including the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, the George Washington Carver Center in Maryland--which houses the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and most of its U.S. Forest Service (USFS) research stations. The move is expected to displace hundreds of scientific staff and significantly reshape USDA's research footprint.
Of the approximately 4,600 USDA employees currently based in the Washington region, no more than 2,000 will remain after the reorganization is complete. The rest will be transferred to regional offices in an effort, the department says, to better serve rural communities and reduce operational costs. USFS research, currently conducted in 5 regional stations, will be consolidated at a single station in Fort Collins, risking the loss of regional expertise and long-term forest experiments. While no layoffs are planned, significant staff attrition is expected.
The plan has drawn comparisons to the previous Trump-era move of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service to Kansas City--an effort that led to mass resignations and the loss of experienced staff. Critics warn this new reorganization could similarly undermine USDA's scientific capacity and institutional knowledge.
While USDA says scientific work will continue and critical functions will remain uninterrupted, former officials, researchers, and labor groups warn that the relocation could weaken the agency's research capacity at a time when it is expected to help implement a new farm bill and respond to mounting climate and agricultural challenges.
Lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-AR), said he was "disappointed" USDA officials did not consult Congress before announcing the reorganization and plans to hold a hearing. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who serves as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry stated, "I have serious doubts that the Administration adequately considered the impact of this move on research and on services for farmers and rural Americans."
Whistleblower Complaint Filed by NSF Staffers
One hundred and forty-nine employees of the National Science Foundation (NSF) anonymously signed and submitted a letter of dissent to Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who serves as the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The letter submitted to Lofgren as "a protected whistleblower disclosure" includes eight areas of concern "that threaten the integrity of the NSF" and violate federal protections for civil service workers. Concerns include staff cuts, current and proposed reductions to funding, political interference with the grant application process, and the sudden relocation of the NSF headquarters as reasons for dissent. The letter also includes a petition for action by the House science committee, calling for transparency, independence from political interference, and protections for staff and appropriated funds.
Similar letters have been recently shared by employees to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Space and Aeronautics Administration (NASA). However, this letter differs in its approach and platform. The NSF letter was directed to an elected official, the minority leader of a House Committee, rather than an agency head, and sent through the NSF employee union rather than hosted by Stand Up for Science. Moreover, the NSF signers were quickly anonymized on the date of publication. Among federal agencies, NSF faces some of the most drastic cuts in President Trump's budget request at a 57% reduction from current funding.
Ranking Member Lofgren responded to the letter with praise for the signers' "bravery" and "patriotism," pledging to protect the signers, the agency, and the "scientific enterprise."
NASA Employees Signal Dissatisfaction in Declaration and Departures
Following in the steps of other federal agencies, 363 current and former employees at the National Space and Aeronautics Administration (NASA) expressed concern for recent policy changes within the agency in a letter titled "The Voyager Declaration." The letter, addressed to Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, details the employees' Formal Dissent against recent cutbacks, terminations, and cultural shifts.
The Formal Dissent process comes under the Technical Authority process, created following the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy to promote alternative perspectives in the decision-making process as part of the agency's "checks and balances." One of the first concerns highlighted in the letter arises from changes to this Technical Authority process. Specifically, the letter's authors cite a "culture of organizational silence" promoted in the agency during the past six months.
The letter further emphasizes mission cancellations and withdrawals from international missions, which constitute irreversible losses in the space agency's capacity, and the loss to local economies due to contract and grant terminations. The signatories also stress the lost value of basic research recently cut within NASA. The President has proposed a 47% cut in funding for NASA's science programs.
Finally, the letter calls out the impact of workforce reductions, cuts to workforce development programs, and the proposed elimination of the Office of STEM Engagement. Thousands of NASA employees have voluntarily left the agency this year. Of NASA's roughly 17,000 employees, more than 3,600 have departed--accounting for nearly three-quarters of the 5,000 staff cuts proposed by the President. The exits span multiple NASA centers, with 80% of those leaving coming from senior leadership positions at the highest pay scale.
NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens issued a response to the Declaration, admonishing the "radical, discriminatory DEI principles" promoted in the letter and expressing the Trump Administration's commitment to safety and "communicating our scientific achievements."
House GOP Pushes Overhaul of Marine Mammal Law
A House Natural Resources Subcommittee hearing last week exposed sharp partisan divides over a GOP-backed proposal to overhaul the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Representative Nick Begich (R-AK) introduced the discussion draft as a preliminary step toward reducing what he described as excessive regulatory burdens on coastal economies, in line with the Trump Administration's broader energy and deregulatory agenda.
The proposal would significantly narrow the MMPA's scope by revising key definitions. It removes language from the definition of "harassment" that includes actions merely having "the potential" to injure or disturb marine mammals. It also weakens the application of the "precautionary principle," which currently allows regulators to act when harmful outcomes are likely, even if not certain.
In addition, the bill redefines "optimum sustainable population" as the population "necessary to support the continued survival" of a species--rather than ensuring maximum productivity. It would also prohibit regulators from relying on factors such as the likely presence, estimated population sizes, or estimated geographic ranges of marine mammals when making management decisions.
Most Democrats slammed the bill as a giveaway to polluters that weakens marine mammal protections, with Representative Val Hoyle (D-OR) calling it an invitation to "harassment and murder" of wildlife. However, Representative Jared Golden (D-ME) voiced frustration with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) current implementation of the law, citing its economic impact on Maine's lobster industry.
Trump Creates New Federal Job Category to Expand Political Influence
President Trump has signed an Executive Order establishing "Schedule G," a new class of federal employees who are not career civil servants and are expected to leave with the Administration.
Designed to accelerate implementation of the President's agenda, Schedule G allows for a broader infusion of political appointees across agencies, raising concerns about politicizing federal hiring and weakening the apolitical civil service.
Critics argue Schedule G duplicates existing authority under Schedule C and risks undermining government expertise. The move follows the revival of Schedule F--now called Schedule Policy/Career--which similarly reclassifies policy-focused staff as at-will employees. There are concerns that both policies could erode institutional knowledge and further politicize federal agencies.
Higher Ed Coalition Proposes New Research Cost Model to Policymakers
A coalition of higher education associations has presented a new model for federal reimbursement of indirect research costs, aiming to replace the current negotiated-rate model amid Trump Administration efforts to cap those costs at 15%.
The Financial Accountability in Research (FAIR) model, proposed by the Joint Associations Group on Indirect Costs (JAG), would rename and restructure indirect costs into two categories--Essential Research Performance Support (ERPS) and General Research Operations (GRO). ERPS includes costs that are "necessary for carrying out research and that can be linked explicitly to a given project" and GRO takes into account "institution-wide infrastructure and services that are ... impractical to allocate to a given project."
The FAIR model calculates most ERPS costs in actual dollar amounts and limits GRO reimbursement to 15% of the total award. It also introduces options to simplify cost calculations for institutions with fewer administrative resources. The model was developed by JAG after receiving feedback on two earlier proposed models.
Proponents, including former White House science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier, argue the plan increases transparency, aligns better with private funding models, and ensures critical compliance and grant management costs are covered. But at a recent virtual town hall, many university research leaders voiced concerns that the model is too complex, politically risky, and could unintentionally reduce research budgets by shifting some indirect costs into the direct cost category subject to funding caps. Despite the pushback, proponents say the FAIR model is a necessary alternative to proposed flat caps on indirect costs, urging the research community to remain united to avoid deeper funding cuts.
JAG is currently pitching its recommendation to Congress and the executive branch but also has a webform set up to gather community feedback.
House Spending Panel Rejects Trump's Global Health Cuts
A key House appropriations panel has pushed back against President Trump's proposed deep cuts to global health funding, opting instead to maintain current support for programs such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) as well as initiatives focused on malaria, tuberculosis, and other diseases.
While this spending bill for the Department of State and national security programs, aligns with Trump's call to defund the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations (U.N.) programs, it preserves funding for Gavi, nutrition assistance, efforts to vaccinate children, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Health experts welcomed the bipartisan support, though concerns remain over damage already done by earlier layoffs and terminations.
Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is offering its popular professional development program to help scientists and students hone their written communication skills to increase the power of their message.
Writing for Impact and Influence provides practical instruction and hands-on exercises that will improve the participant's general writing proficiency. The program will provide participants with the skills and tools needed to compose scientific press releases, blog posts, memoranda, and more, with a focus on the reader experience.
Each product-oriented session will have an assignment (deadlines are flexible), with feedback from the instructor. The course is interactive, and participants are encouraged to ask questions and exchange ideas with the instructor and other participants. Each session is also recorded and shared with all participants to accommodate scheduling conflicts.
Who Should Take the Course?
- Individuals interested in furthering their professional development by augmenting their writing skills.
- Graduate students and early-career professionals interested in increasing their marketability to employers.
- Individuals interested in more effectively informing and influencing segments of the public, supervisors, policymakers, reporters, organizational leaders, and others.
The course consists of six weekly 90-minute online modules conducted live and subsequently archived online for participant review. The course will begin on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, with subsequent course sessions held weekly on Wednesdays, through October 15. Individuals who actively participate in and complete the full course will receive a certificate recognizing that they have completed a nine-hour professional development course on business writing for scientists.
Register now.
Short Takes
-
The Council of the National Academy of Sciences has nominated evolutionary biologist and science communicator Dr. Neil Shubin to be its next president, succeeding Marcia McNutt in 2026. After his nomination is ratified by NAS members, Shubin, a renowned evolutionary biologist at University of Chicago and NAS member since 2011, will take the helm during a period of major transition. He will help steer the restructuring of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine amid mounting financial pressures and ongoing layoffs at the National Research Council triggered by widespread federal contract cancellations.
-
According to Nature, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plans to disinvite incoming, duly vetted advisory council members to better align with the Trump Administration's priorities. NIH's advisory councils serve as the second wave of approval during the NIH's grant selection process and comprise a diverse set of experts who typically undergo extensive screening and receive no compensation. The move could prolong vacancies - potentially delaying funding decisions - or, Nature reports, NIH may forgo standard nomination procedures to directly appoint replacements.
-
NIH will begin capping the amount it pays for open-access publishing fees for NIH-funded research starting in fiscal year 2026. This move addresses concerns over publishers charging both open-access and subscription fees from government agencies, which NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has called "double-dipping." While the cap amount has not been disclosed, the Department of Health and Human Services criticized high publishing costs and said it is working to protect taxpayer dollars.
-
In accordance with President Trump's May Executive Order, "Improving the Safety and Security of Biological Research," several research projects funded by NIH have been suspended. NIH flagged 40 projects, with another 172 projects marked for potential administrative action, due to "dangerous gain-of-function (GOF) research." The NIH accused staff of removing projects from the list after the initial assessment, but noted that NIH's Principal Deputy Director corrected staff to ensure alignment with the Executive Order. While many scientists acknowledge the risk of GOF research, researchers highlight that these risks are accounted for through biosecurity measures and are weighed against the research's potential benefits. Researchers affected by the suspensions expressed frustration over the lack of transparency from NIH in these decisions.
-
The Science and Technology Action Committee (STAC), a nonpartisan coalition of nonprofit, academic, and industry leaders, hosted a reception to promote federal investment in science and technology. Invited speakers included Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), University of Kansas's Chief Academic Officer Dr. Barb Bichelmeyer, and STAC Co-Chair and AAAS CEO Dr. Sudip Parikh; each provided remarks emphasizing the importance of the science enterprise for the future of the United States and its position on the global stage. Roman summed up the sentiment stating, "it's not just about innovation, it's about investments."
From the Federal Register
The following items appeared in the Federal Register from July 14 to 25, 2025.
Education
Environmental Protection Agency
Executive Office of the President
Health and Human Services
Interior
National Science Foundation
