Action Alert: Ask Your U.S. Representative to Support Investment in NSF
President Trump has proposed to slash the National Science Foundation's (NSF) budget by more than half to $4 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2026. Congress has just begun debating FY 2026 funding levels for federal programs. Please show your support for NSF by asking your Representative to sign a Dear Colleague Letter in support of at least $10.2 billion in funding for the agency in 2026.
In FY 2024, NSF's budget was cut by more than 8% compared to FY 2023, marking the first time NSF funding has decreased in a decade. In FY 2025, Congress and the President enacted a continuing resolution to maintain NSF funding at essentially the FY 2024 enacted level through the end of the fiscal year. While a needed agreement was reached to keep the government funded, FY 2024 and 2025 funding for NSF have fallen far below our competitiveness needs. Furthermore, these allocations disregard the landmark CHIPS and Science Act, which demonstrated bipartisan commitment to advancing U.S. science and innovation. Funding for NSF continues to lag behind authorized levels; Congress approved a target funding level of $17.8 billion for NSF in FY 2026.
An effort is now underway in the House of Representatives to build support for increased FY 2026 funding for NSF. Representatives Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) are circulating a Dear Colleague Letter calling on Congress to provide at least $10.2 billion in funding to NSF in FY 2026.
Please take a few moments to write to your Representative to sign the bipartisan Neguse-Fitzpatrick Dear Colleague Letter. The deadline for Representatives to be added to the letter is COB on Wednesday, May 14, 2025.
Biologists Advocate for Sustained Science Funding During AIBS Congressional Visits Day
Biological scientists from across the country were in Washington, DC, on April 28-30, 2025, to participate in the AIBS Communications Boot Camp for Scientists and Congressional Visits Day.
Following a two-day communications and advocacy training program, scientists headed to Capitol Hill where they spent April 30 meeting with their members of Congress. During a critical time for the U.S. scientific enterprise, these meetings were an opportunity for scientists to help lawmakers understand the importance of sustained and predictable federal investments in scientific research, particularly how federal investments support cutting-edge research in their districts and states. Participants talked with their elected officials about the need for Congress to appropriate at least $9.9 billion to the National Science Foundation and $51.3 billion for the National Institutes of Health in FY 2026. Some also discussed the importance of new investments in other science agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior.
Overall, 70 meetings took place between congressional offices and scientists from 22 states and DC. AIBS member societies, including American Society of Mammalogists, American Society of Naturalists, American Society of Plant Taxonomists, Botanical Society of America, Mycological Society of America, Organization of Biological Field Stations, and Society for the Study of Evolution, sponsored the participation of a number of scientists. Recipient of the 2025 AIBS Emerging Public Policy Leadership Award--JP Flores from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill--also attended.
Learn more.
Trump Proposes Drastic Cuts for Science
Last Friday, the White House unveiled its preliminary, so-called "skinny," budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2026, proposing dramatic funding cuts for several science agencies.
Overall, the budget would cut nondefense spending by $163 billion or 23% compared to FY 2025 and increase defense spending by 13%. Among the agencies listed in the budget proposal, the State Department, which includes the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would see the largest cuts, in that order.
The Administration has proposed shrinking NSF's budget by nearly 57%, reducing funding from $9.1 billion in FY 2024 to $3.9 billion in FY 2026--the lowest level since 2001. The cuts would primarily target research on climate change, clean energy, and what the White House calls "woke" social, behavioral, and economic sciences. Overall, roughly $3.5 billion would be cut from research and education. Only research in artificial intelligence and quantum information sciences would be maintained at current levels. Programs aimed at broadening participation in science and engineering would also be mostly eliminated--only $200 million will be retained out of $1.4 billion. The plan cuts $93 million from the $450 million that NSF currently receives for agency operations, asserting that "this reduction to operations aligns with the agency's reduced size."
Highlights for other science agencies is as follows:
-
Budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be slashed by roughly $18 billion or 40%. "NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health," the proposal reads, adding that future research would "align with the President's priorities to address chronic disease and other epidemics, implementing all executive orders, and eliminating research on climate change, radical gender ideology, and divisive racialism." The proposal would reorganize the agency arguing it "has grown too big and unfocused" but retains funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health.
- The proposal would cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Services by 26% and slash funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by roughly 39%, from $9.2 billion to $5.6 billion.
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is facing a $1.5 billion or 25% cut eliminating "a variety of climate-dominated research, data, and grant programs, which are not aligned with Administration policy-ending 'Green New Deal' initiatives."
-
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is slated for a $325 million or 28% cut to $835 million.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would see an overall 18% cut. Extramural research supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture would contract by 36%, while the Agricultural Research Service and USDA Research Statistical Agencies would see their budgets drop by $160 million.
-
Within the U.S. Forst Service, funding for Forest and Rangeland Research would decrease by 62% or $300 million.
-
The Department of Interior's budget would be cut from $16.8 billion to $11.7 billion (-30%), with the National Park Service absorbing a $1.2 billion cut and the Bureau of Land Management's conservation programs facing a nearly $200 million reduction. The U.S. Geological Survey would see its budget slashed by nearly 40% with a "focus on achieving dominance in energy and critical minerals."
-
EPA's budget would be slashed by 55%, from $9.1 billion to $4.2 billion--reducing it to 1980s levels. The proposal would eliminate over $1 billion in grants to states and tribes, slash funding for hazardous waste cleanup, and gut programs supporting clean water, air quality, and climate research. EPA's Office of Research and Development, which has been targeted for elimination, would see a $235 million (or 46%) cut in funding. "Instead, the Budget provides $281 million for statutorily required research in support of core mission areas that help the American people."
- The Department of Energy would be reduced by 9.4% or $4.7 billion, with its Office of Science facing a $1.1 billion or 14% cut. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would receive a $2.5 billion or 74% reduction, while the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) would see its funding slashed by more than half - from $460 million to $200 million.
-
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would see its funding shrink by 24% to $18.8 billion. NASA's science budget would be cut by 53%, with its Earth Science program being slashed by more than half.
- The proposal calls for eliminating the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the Marine Mammal Commission, which provides science advice on protecting whales and other marine mammals.
A detailed budget breakdown is expected later this month. The President's budget request serves as a starting point for budget discussions, with Congress ultimately having the power to make funding decisions through the appropriations process.
Turmoil at NSF: Director Resigns, Hundreds More Research Grants Terminated
The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is facing deep turmoil following the abrupt resignation of its Director, Sethuraman Panchanathan, amid efforts by the Trump Administration to slash the agency's budget by 55% and its workforce by 50%.
"I believe I have done all I can to advance the critical mission of the agency and feel that it is time for me to pass the baton to new leadership," said Panchanathan in an April 24 statement accompanying his resignation.
Shortly after his departure, the NSF terminated roughly 700 research grants--on top of hundreds previously canceled--many of which supported diversity and inclusion efforts. These actions coincided with the arrival of officials from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a cost-cutting initiative led by Elon Musk. Many of the terminated awards featured on a list of roughly 3,500 grants highlighted by Senate Science Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) as being "extremist." A third round of terminations occurred last Friday.
Internal documents reveal that the initial round of grant terminations targeted roughly 400 awards totaling $237 million and included projects already partially funded. A crowdsourced tracker currently lists over 1,000 terminated grants totaling $674 million, with the largest share coming from the STEM Education directorate--approximately 455 awards totaling $381 million.
Critics say the terminations bypassed due process and violated longstanding NSF review principles, prompting outrage from scientists and legal scholars who argue the agency is succumbing to political interference and undermining its mission. In response, the NSF employee union is urging scientific societies to mobilize their members against what it calls an unfolding crisis threatening NSF's future.
Following the resignation of Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, NSF is also re-offering voluntary resignation packages to employees, citing upcoming restructuring, centralization, and potential major workforce reductions.
Furthermore, on April 30, staff at NSF were told to "stop awarding all funding actions until further notice," preventing the agency from awarding new research grants and funding existing ones. The new internal policy also requires staff to reject proposals not aligned with agency priorities, raising concerns about political interference and undermining NSF's merit-based review process.
The agency also announced a 15% cap on indirect rates last Friday, in line with previous efforts at the Department of Energy and National Institutes of Health that are currently blocked by courts. The NSF policy goes into effect today and applies only to new awards made on or after May 5, 2025.
Senators Offer Bipartisan Rebuke to Trump's NIH Cuts
During a bipartisan hearing led by Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) and Vice-Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) last week, lawmakers from both parties pushed back against President Trump's efforts to slash funding and impose restrictions on the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
In recent months, the administration has withheld billions in congressionally approved research funds, canceled grants, cut workforce, and attempted to cap university reimbursement rates for indirect cost at 15%. The agency is also facing a drastic 44% spending cut in the President's FY 2026 budget proposal.
During the hearing, titled "Biomedical research: Keeping America's edge in innovation," a bipartisan group of senators criticized the moves to dramatically reduce federal investment in biomedical research. "These actions put our leadership in biomedical innovation at real risk and must be reversed," argued Chair Collins. "President Trump has taken a wrecking ball to our biomedical research enterprise," stated Ranking Member Murray.
Witnesses, including a patient advocate and research leaders such as the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, emphasized NIH's critical role in health, innovation, and economic strength.
While senators from both parties support increasing NIH funding at a steady rate, they may not have sufficient power to reverse Trump's policies or prevent future cutbacks. Trump is expected to seek cuts to NIH's current FY 2025 budget--and those of other federal agencies--through a rescission process that reduces already approved funding. While Senator Collins's committee has formal authority over these requests, Trump's sway over congressional leadership means the cuts will likely be bundled into a larger package, preventing Collins from forcing an individual vote on the NIH budget.
In related news, the new NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya defended recent grant cuts and organizational changes as necessary shifts to align the agency with the "Make America Healthy Again" agenda, which prioritizes chronic disease research over diversity, global health, and other initiatives. While pledging to restore stability and transparency at NIH, Bhattacharya supported controversial decisions like canceling DEI-related grants and consolidating agency functions, though he emphasized the importance of maintaining NIH's mission and regaining the scientific community's trust.
EPA Launches Major Reorganization
The Trump administration is initiating a sweeping reorganization of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that will eliminate its centralized Office of Research and Development (ORD), shift scientific staff to individual program offices, and reduce staffing levels to those seen during the Reagan era.
ORD employes approximately 1,500 staff, who will be reassigned "to tackle statutory obligations and mission essential functions." The reorganization is intended to streamline operations, cut costs (with projected savings of $300 million), and support regulatory efforts such as chemical reviews and PFAS research.
Over 130 scientific and technical experts from ORD will move to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention to help address a backlog of new chemical reviews. A new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions will be created to align scientific research with regulatory priorities and enhance support for states, while an Office of State Air Partnerships will streamline permitting for states, tribes, and localities.
Critics warn the changes could lead to increased political influence over science, create redundancies, and prompt widespread resignations. Many staffers are reportedly considering early retirement or quitting rather than accepting reassignment. The White House has proposed a 55% cut to EPA's budget for fiscal year 2026. The agency currently employs about 14,700 people, and officials have not specified how many positions will be eliminated.
National Climate Assessment Authors Dismissed
The Trump administration has dismissed all scientists working on the upcoming National Climate Assessment (NCA), halting progress on the congressionally mandated report that informs U.S. climate policy.
Critics warn this could lead to the report being replaced with politically motivated pseudoscience, possibly downplaying climate risks or promoting supposed "benefits" of global warming. The move follows the defunding of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and aligns with conservative efforts to reshape federal climate messaging. Dismissed researchers have vowed to continue their work independently to provide Americans with reliable climate information.
NIH Ends Foreign Research Funding
The NIH announced it will stop allowing U.S. grant recipients to share funds with foreign collaborators (known as "foreign subawards") by September 30, 2025. Instead, foreign researchers must apply for their own NIH grants directly.
NIH framed the change as a way to improve oversight and protect national security, though it has sparked strong backlash from the scientific community, who warn it will disrupt global research on major diseases and undermine international collaboration. The policy does not retroactively affect current awards but halts new subawards until a new foreign collaboration award structure is created.
The move follows political scrutiny over NIH's ties to foreign labs, especially the Wuhan Institute of Virology, though no evidence links it to COVID-19's origin. Critics warn the move will undermine global health efforts, limit collaboration, and delay lifesaving research.
Bipartisan Report Provides Action Plan for Emerging Biotechnology
A new report from the bipartisan National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB), led by Senator Todd Young (R-IN) and Dr. Michelle Rozo, provides a sobering conclusion: "China is quickly ascending to biotechnology dominance, having made biotechnology a strategic priority for 20 years. To remain competitive, the United States must take swift action in the next three years. Otherwise, we risk falling behind, a setback from which we may never recover."
The commission was charged with "conducting a thorough review of how advancements in emerging biotechnology and related technologies will shape current and future activities of the Department of Defense." The report's main recommendation is that the U.S. government should invest a minimum of $15 billion over the next five years to spur the national biotechnology sector. "Any smaller amount risks hamstringing U.S. innovation and product development," it asserts.
The comprehensive report offers six broad recommendations to secure U.S. leadership in biotech: (1) prioritize biotechnology at the national level; (2) mobilize the private sector to get U.S. products to scale; (3) maximize the benefits of biotechnology for defense; (4) out-innovate our strategic competitors; (5) build the biotech workforce of the future; and (6) mobilize the collective strengths of our allies and partners.
Trump Moves to Reclassify Many Federal Workers
President Trump has proposed a policy that would reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers involved in policy-making as "Schedule Policy/Career" employees, stripping them of traditional civil service protections.
The White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) estimates that 50,000 positions will ultimately be moved into Schedule Policy/Career--roughly 2% of the Federal workforce. But the change, framed as a move to increase accountability and efficiency in government, may ultimately impact hundreds of thousands of federal workers according to experts, making mass firings easier.
Critics warn the shift could politicize the civil service and disrupt government stability, while the White House maintains the rule will target only policy-influencing roles and uphold merit-based hiring. Comments on the proposal may be submitted until May 23.
AIBS Signs Amicus Brief Supporting NIH Funding Restoration
AIBS has signed on to an amicus brief, filed by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB), the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), and the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology (FASEB), asking the court to hold recent Executive Orders resulting in termination of grants supporting young scientists as unlawful and to order the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to restore funding speedily as requested in American Public Health Association v. NIH.
The brief argues that NIH's termination of diversity-focused initiatives violates its statutory mandate to support diversity, which yields critical benefits for research, discovery, and innovation, and that these terminations will imperil the careers of emerging leaders in science, irreparably harm scientific research in the United States, and damage the American economy.
AIBS Joins Letter in Support of USGS Ecosystems Mission Area
AIBS has joined the Ecological Society of America and 70 other scientific societies in sending a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum expressing full support for the Ecosystems Mission Area within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Initial drafts of the federal budget proposal suggest that the Administration is planning to discontinue or defund the entire Ecosystems Mission Area in fiscal year (FY) 2026.
The letter urges the Secretary to fully fund the Ecosystems Mission Area--USGS's biological research arm--at its FY 2025 funding level in the FY 2026 federal budget for the agency, so that it can "continue its critical work of maintaining our nation's natural resources, ensuring environmental health, and protecting public health."
Read the letter.
AIBS Endorses Letter in Support of FY 2026 Funding for EPA Science & Technology
AIBS has endorsed a community letter urging congressional appropriators to support increased funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science and Technology (S&T) account in fiscal year (FY) 2026.
The letter recommends that Congress provide at least $876 million for EPA S&T, of which $40 million is requested for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program.
"EPA's ability to address increasingly complex environmental challenges has been hampered by staffing shortages and declining research funding," the letter reads. "EPA staffing levels are at historic lows and funding for S&T has dropped from a peak of $846 million in FY 2010 to $758.1 million in FY 2024/FY 2025. The STAR program has been underfunded, falling from $138 million in FY 2012 to $28.6 million in recent years. Nonetheless, EPA S&T supported research has profoundly impacted public health, pollution control, and environmental sustainability."
Read the letter sent to the House. An identical letter was shared with the Senate.
AIBS Signs Letter Opposing Proposed Cuts to HHS
AIBS joined more than 500 organizations in sending a letter to House and Senate appropriators calling on them to reject proposed budget cuts across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The letter expresses concern regarding the Administration's draft fiscal year (FY) 2026 HHS budget, which proposes cutting about one-third of the department's discretionary spending. It reads in part: "The draft proposal is dangerous and devastating. It would put our nation's health and security at risk by defunding, and in some cases eliminating, vital programs that monitor and defend against infectious and chronic disease, battle opioid and mental health epidemics, protect the public against environmental and occupational health threats, reduce preventable injuries, address public health emergencies and deliver high-quality care to veterans, seniors, and other Americans. These cuts will also seriously undermine our ability to remain a global leader in developing the next generation of treatments and cures for cancer and other diseases."
While the groups acknowledged that "creating an efficient and effective health care and public health system is important," they emphasized that across the board cuts for HHS agencies "will not achieve this goal."
AIBS Requests Increased Funding for ARPA-H in FY 2026
A coalition of 77 organizations, including AIBS, has sent a letter to House and Senate appropriators requesting at least $1.7 billion for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) in fiscal year (FY) 2026 -- a $200 million increase over FY 2025.
"ARPA-H's charge to support transformative health breakthroughs for the benefit of all Americans is unique within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and it is crucial that this agency be maintained as a distinct entity that is funded independently of other health-focused agencies," the letter reads. "Growing the agency's budget, by providing a $200 million increase over FY 2025's Continuing Resolution levels, will allow the agency to expand its portfolio to new technologies, approaches, and teams to meet the health challenges facing our country now and to prepare for the threats of the future."
Short Takes
-
The National Science Board--the governing body of the National Science Foundation--has issued a call for nominations for new board members for the class of 2026-2032. The nomination and appointment process takes approximately 12 months. Nominations can be submitted via this online portal until May 30, 2025
-
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has issued a new "Civil Rights term and condition" for all domestic recipients of new, renewal, supplement, or continuation awards issued on or after April 21, 2025. The policy states that recipients must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws and certify that they do not and will not operate programs promoting DEI, DEIA, or "discriminatory equity ideology" in violation of these laws. They must also refrain from participating in discriminatory boycotts against Israeli companies, with noncompliance resulting in award terminations.
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting nominations of experts to serve on its Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Nominations will be accepted until June 2, 2025.
-
Last week, the NIH announced that its revised Public Access Policy will now take effect on July 1, 2025--six months earlier than previously scheduled. Under the new policy, peer-reviewed manuscripts from NIH-funded research must be made publicly available immediately upon journal acceptance.
- The National Science Board is holding a virtual meeting on May 7 to address science and engineering policy issues relevant to the National Science Foundation. The Sunshine Act agenda provides more details.
From the Federal Register
The following items appeared in the Federal Register from April 21 to May 2, 2025.
Commerce
Environmental Protection Agency
Executive Office of the President
Health and Human Services
Interior
National Science Foundation
