The White House Vision for Dismantling Science in One Simple Plot
Proposed NIH, NSF, and NASA budgets would be catastrophic for innovation and discovery. But they aren’t reality yet. The time to speak up is now.
A Catastrophic Vision of a Diminished America
The White House released its vision for science, research, and development late Friday afternoon. It is catastrophic. If enacted, proposed budgets for FY 2026 mean that research and programs within NIH, NSF, and NASA would be slashed or cut altogether. NSF would lose $5B, NASA would lose $6.8B and NIH would lose $18B. These are not incidental budget cuts – they represent reductions of more than 50% to core programs. Hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs. The economy and lives are at stake. It seems imperative to convey the magnitude – or at least try.
So, last night, I spent some time pondering the impacts of the proposed budget & felt it was critical to put the proposed cuts in perspective – graphically. Here is what I came up with and posted Friday evening on bluesky (with a fix to a missing point):
The intention here is to convey information on all three budgets, highlight the missed opportunity, and specify the magnitude of the cuts. To do so, the plot depicts inflation adjusted budgets (in FY 2024 terms), using source data from public agencies as well as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The implicit point should also be apparent – the scope of cuts being proposed are extreme outliers that would drive the US backwards, far more than a quarter century. The cuts would undermine the basic capacity of universities, research institutions, hospitals, and mission-driven agencies to drive our innovation economy.
If passed as proposed, Congressional representatives will have made a decision to sabotage research, innovation, discovery, exploration, jobs, and the health and well-being of communities all across the United States. The research funds invested here represent significant returns on investment. This proposal is not an exercise in government efficiency. This proposal is an abdication of American leadership that will have immediate consequences and worsen structural deficits in years to come.
But, the budget has not been passed. It’s not reality – yet. This graph shows exactly how far this budget is out of line with values and precedent, spanning a quarter century (and more) of administrations. There is still time to act. Contact your representative and ask them what they are doing to step back from the brink.
NSF
The NSF budget proposed slashes research by more than 50%. All major directorates are hit, including biology, computer and information science, engineering, geosciences, mathematical and physical sciences, as well as social, behavioral and economic sciences. For a government that claims to be pro-business, it is notable that the budget slashes SBIR and STTR, aka America’s seed fund that provide pathways for translating NSF discoveries into small business and technologies that can grow to become pillars of American innovation. Despite claims on social media that America will win the global race in Artificial Intelligence, the administration proposes to slash NSF’s AI budget by more than 250M. Notably, the report is transparent on the direct job losses caused by this budget. The Trump administration estimates that the number of people directly involved in NSF activities will drop from ~330,000 to ~90,000, a loss of ~240,000 to say nothing of the knock-on effects in communities all across the U.S.
NIH
The proposed NIH budget slashes health research across the board. The table below comes directly from the White House budget. I have augmented the information with a few examples. Research on cancer, infectious diseases and aging are all slashed by ~40%. Notably, the administration has made it difficult to compare directly between Institutes and Centers because of proposed consolidation. For example, there used to be a National Eye Institute – no longer – and merging it with neuroscience and brain research reflects fundamental misunderstanding of scientific fields. These kinds of ad-hoc “disruptive” cancellations will destroy the continuity of research, reduce disciplinary expertise, and lead to overall losses in research portfolios. In many instances, programs have been disappeared. The budget removes all support for “Domestic and Global HIV/AIDS, Global Tuberculosis, Global Immunization, and the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.” In essence, the administration has expressed its values and priorities clearly. HHS Sec. Kennedy Jr and NIH Director Bhattacharya, together, are overseeing the intentional dismantling of American leadership in health research.
NASA
The cuts to NASA are drastic, and would reduce funding to inflation-adjusted equivalent levels last seen in 1961. Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969. We are not closer to humans walking on Mars (and there are many reasons to ask why this is an objective over many other alternative visions for a 21st century space science and exploration program). But, one thing is evident: we are closer to a wholesale regression of space science writ large, even while the budget earmarks $2B for SpaceX. All science divisions would see large-scale cuts, including astrophysics, heliophysics (seems like the Sun and the Solar System should be of some relevance), earth science, and planetary sciences. This is an abdication of our history and leadership even as more money flows to a private company whose ‘reusable’ missions keep failing. There is one more point worth making here – the administration has no interest in education, engaging, or inspiring the next generation of scientists, researchers, and astronauts. The FY 2025 budget for STEM engagement in NASA was $143M, the same as it was in FY 2024.
The proposed budget for FY 2026 for STEM engagement in NASA? $0.
An idea I have heard from Michael Kratsios at a NASEM presentation.
The cuts will be filled in by a private-public partnership. I think this means the Sand Hill road crowd will use their very deep pockets to select projects that they partially fund. I suppose they will want IP. They will leverage the public investment for private ownership of the IP, getting in early and taking the research to market.
This breaks the current, successful model of peer review, replacing it with a for profit model in which research directions are heavily influenced by private, say, VC firms. They partially fund, and probably significantly own.
The idea is floating around. Not sure how deeply embedded it is in administration thinking.
Thanks for putting this together