It has been one-year since the federal government has made significant changes to how scientific research proposals are evaluated and funded. Since then, government priorities have shifted, resulting in massive cuts to federal research. Consequently, research institutions and universities have allocated resources to remain open and support students and faculty. Additionally, some research scholars have lost their funding, students are finding it difficult to complete their degree requirements, and scientists are leaving to seek opportunities in other countries. At the very start of 2026, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center closed its main library as a reorganization plan to consolidate facilities, save money, and reduce deferred maintenance. Although NASA officials state they will be digitalizing valuable materials, they neglect to advise on what is classified as “valuable”. Funding restrictions on medical research limit the opportunity to conduct experiments necessary to confirm drug safety as well as conclude biological findings. Furthermore, delays in medical research have postponed and eliminated hundreds of clinical trials for patients with various pathologies, including cancer. Unfortunately, just a few months of delayed progress can push clinical trials back years. This limits accessible, life-saving treatment to United States residents that need it the most. Therefore, as scientific funding becomes scarcer, the question remains: what lies ahead for research in America?
A news article from Nature by Jeff Tollefson, Max Kozlov, and Dan Garisto outlines themes that will define 2026. Many scientists are hopefully and expect that the US congress will finalize the federal budget this month in January.
A big topic in the budget includes funding for universities and research centers. Proposed spending legislation has the potential to improve funding opportunities. Therefore, universities could save billions of dollars through efforts to reduce overhead and indirect costs from federal grants. However, researchers and scientists are worried that the legislation may get blocked, further restricting academies of funds.
Lawmakers are also considering ways to overcome a 15% federal cap on indirect costs. Specifically, indirect costs pay for building maintenance worth up to 75% of the federal grant administered to an institution. For example, most comprehensive cancer centers use a significant portion of federal research funds for indirect costs - many are around 75%. This money is critical for maintaining operations at hospitals and vital research centers across the country. The NSF, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Defense and Department of Energy (DoE) have proposed to limit indirect costs for universities at 15%. Currently, lawmakers are working to design a way to accurately account for indirect costs in grant applications for federal funding. This would streamline the process and avoid a government-wide 15% cap.
The grant application review process is expected to change. Last year, political appointees were allowed access to and control of grants. Specifically, public officials now have the power to say which grants will be funded or not. A major issue occurs when politicians decided to support research aims that advance their own agenda compared to projects that may more widely benefit the public. It was made clear that these public officials will work with scientists to fund the most deserving grant proposals. Peer-reviewed scores, which are evaluations for each grant based on scientific rigor and merit, are being re-evaluated to confirm these criteria are met and that the research directly benefits Americans. For example, the NIH has issued a statement favoring the use of clinical samples to improve translational research for patients. In the same statement, they recommend researchers avoid the use of animals in studies. While the goal of the NIH is to more immediately benefit patients, animals are necessary to study particular pathologies and mechanisms. Therefore, the NIH has not completely restricted the use of animal research.
Universities are still being evaluated and investigated for promoting ideologies that the government states do not align with American values. Although, universities are designed to promote free-thought and challenge current academic concepts, the funds are being restricted to reshape leadership and change curriculum. As a result, several universities have already agreed to make reforms and pay fines in exchange for federal funding. It is also expected that a select number of universities will sign an agreement with the government to receive preferential treatment for grant funding after meeting outlined higher education standards. However, it remains a concern that restricted funding in combination with a change in university hierarchy could bankrupt institutions that force them to close their doors.
International student education is also being affected by current federal changes. In the 2024-2025 academic year, international student enrollment dropped by 17%. Many universities attribute this drop in enrollment to student visa issues. Experts suspect this decrease to continue and hurt universities. Although less international students are enrolled, about 14% of students were found to stay in the United States studying science-related fields. These programs are referred to as optional practical training (OPT); however, it was made clear that the government may discontinue OPT to consolidate resources. The administration has also suggested limiting international PhD students to 5-years with a requirement of a 5-year social media history background check. While international student numbers at universities are decreasing, no reports have come out stating how this affects other student populations. Currently, there is no report of domestic student enrollment and whether it has impacted universities.
The government’s priorities have shifted toward technology focused initiatives. The federal government has launched several initiatives to improve science and technology in America that focus on artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information science (QIS), space exploration, 5G and communications, and high school science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. While these proposals are expected to advance science and technology in the U.S., the overall impact of these initiatives will not be appreciated for a few years.
Changes briefly outlined in this article provide insight into what this year has in store for university-level science. While scientific policy and grant application reviews undergo changes, lawmakers and government institutions are working to improve science in America. Debates have ensued to determine optimal practice for the benefit of the entire country. There is a shift in the type of research that is being promoted. As a result, scientists and healthcare researchers are seeking alternative sources of funding from private foundations and institutional grants. As policymakers finalize the 2026 budget, scientists watch as the government alters how science is funded and conducted in America.