Feature
More than 7,800 research grants terminated or frozen. Some 25,000 scientists and personnel gone from agencies that oversee research. Proposed budget cuts of 35% — amounting to US$32 billion. In this graphics-rich immersive feature, Nature shines the spotlight on the impact that one year of the administration of Donald Trump has had on US science.
Source: Historical workforce numbers at scientific agencies were taken from the Office of Personnel and Management; numbers for 2025 were obtained from agency responses to Nature’s query or from shutdown plans released by agencies in late September 2025.
News
The US Congress is poised to approve legislation rejecting huge cuts to science sought by the administration of US President Donald Trump. The deal, announced yesterday, would see the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) increase by around 1% this year — instead of the 37% reduction proposed by Trump. The NIH agreement follows separate legislation that would minimize cuts to most of the other main science agencies. Lawmakers have until the end of the month to finalize the NIH deal and other spending legislation to avoid a partial government shutdown, which would be the second closure in less than three months.
News
The United States is leaving 66 global agencies — including some of the world’s oldest and most influential scientific networks involved in biodiversity research, climate science and conservation, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It will maintain a presence on some key agencies, such as the World Trade Organization. The effect of withdrawal is “not just loss of financial contribution”, says anthropologist Sera Young. It is “also the messaging of selfishness and the example-setting”. But affected organizations tell Nature that their work continues. “The UN system is designed to be resilient and withstand such withdrawals,” says public-policy expert Maria Ivanova.
Opinion
“One light at the end of the tunnel is the possibility that — after researchers build back from the current crisis — higher education might be reimagined to serve the public good in a better way,” says reproductive scientist Amander Clark. She is one of six leading biomedical researchers who chart ways to protect crucial areas of science and health:
• Academics can turn to the courts to protect freedom of expression and restore suspended research funding, says Clark.
• To limit damage to federal public-health infrastructure such as the FDA, voters can push back in mid-term elections, pharma and health-care companies can exert pressure and state governments and professional societies can plug gaps in expertise, says biomedical legal scholar Hank Greely.
• With the cancellation of programmes such as All of Us, which collects genomic and health data for diverse people, researchers must look beyond the federal government to gather the big data needed to power breakthrough medical AI tools, says cardiologist Eric Topol.
• When it comes to pandemic-preparedness work, “most of this self-injury can be quickly reversed”, say AIDS researchers Salim Abdool Karim and Quarraisha Abdool Karim. Until the US reconnects with global public health, researchers must keep a reckoning of what will need to be rebuilt.
• “The current wave of destruction also offers an opportunity,” argues economist and an epidemiologist Ramanan Laxminarayan. He suggests public-health research would benefit from limiting overhead costs, prioritizing funding for early-career researchers and not “marginalizing viewpoints that fall outside the mainstream”.
Notable quotable
Climate change and aquaculture researcher Halley Froehlich, who is relocating to Finland, is among the US scientists who told Nature about how they are responding to upended careers, damaged morale and unpredictable funding. (Nature | 17 min read)
