Trump-Era Science Funding Cuts Intensify, Driving Researchers to Scale Back or Shut Down Labs

A nationwide survey reveals a deepening crisis in American biomedical research, a year after Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Rather than easing, the impacts of funding shifts and outright cuts at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are intensifying, forcing researchers to scale back ambitions, lay off staff, and, in some cases, close labs entirely. The findings, from a STAT survey of nearly 1,000 NIH-funded researchers, paint a concerning picture of a scientific enterprise under sustained pressure.

A Cascade of Disruptions

More than a quarter of respondents reported having to lay off lab members, and over 40% have canceled planned research projects. A striking two-thirds are now advising students to consider careers outside of academic science. While Congress did boost the NIH budget and courts reversed some grant terminations, just 35% of those whose funding was cut or delayed reported full restoration by the end of 2025. This suggests that even with legislative and legal interventions, the damage is far from repaired.

The impact is particularly acute for early-career scientists. A staggering 81% of junior, tenure-track researchers expressed concern that disruptions to their function could jeopardize their chances of earning tenure. This raises fears of a brain drain, as promising scientists may seek more stable opportunities elsewhere.

The survey isn’t just capturing statistics; it’s revealing human stories. Researchers shared accounts of diabetes prevention trials in Puerto Rico being derailed, labs being forced to close, and scientists accepting drastic pay cuts to avoid layoffs. These individual experiences underscore the real-world consequences of the funding turmoil.

NIH Response and Shifting Priorities

In response to the STAT findings, the NIH maintains its commitment to supporting the best scientific minds and improving health. Still, the agency also places blame on the previous administration, arguing that the Biden administration prioritized “ideological agendas” over “scientific rigor.” The NIH asserts It’s now directing funds toward research that delivers results, focusing on combating chronic disease. The agency is currently lagging in the number of grant awards compared to prior years, despite committing to fully spend its 2026 budget.

Jason Owen-Smith, executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, believes the survey results indicate a deeper problem: a sense of anxiety and chaos undermining the agency’s objectives. He likened the situation to working for a company on the verge of bankruptcy, where it’s challenging to focus on high-risk, high-reward science.

The Personal Toll: Stories from the Lab

Mariya Sweetwyne, an assistant professor at the University of Washington, exemplifies the challenges researchers are facing. Her research on kidney aging and chronic disease was severely impacted when an NIH grant program was rescinded after President Trump ended initiatives connected to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Despite securing some bridge funding, she was forced to lay off a lab technician and reduce the size of her animal colony. She now anticipates having to shut down her lab entirely by the end of the year, potentially losing her position at the university as well. The stress is even impacting her family, with her six-year-old daughter questioning if they have enough money.

Josiemer Mattei, a Harvard researcher running a diabetes prevention trial in Puerto Rico, faced similar disruptions. Funding cuts forced her to pause experiments and lose team members. Participants began dropping out of the trial, fearing repercussions from the administration’s actions. While her funding was eventually restored, the damage was done, and she lost a key partnership with a local clinical research site.

Disparities in Impact

The survey revealed that researchers studying health disparities were disproportionately affected. Sixty-eight percent of these researchers shifted their work to align with federal priorities, and 26% had grants terminated – a rate 11 percentage points higher than the overall average. The NIH reportedly told some health equity researchers that their work was “antithetical to scientific inquiry,” raising concerns about the politicization of research.

What’s Next: A Fragile Future for US Science

Despite some positive developments – the restoration of some grants and increased funding – the long-term consequences of these disruptions remain uncertain. The survey found that 13% of researchers have lost staff to institutions in other countries, and 7% have had postdocs or staff reject job offers. This suggests a potential brain drain, as talented scientists seek more stable environments abroad. The situation is further complicated by changes to immigration policy, including travel bans and visa processing delays, which are making it more difficult for foreign scientists to reach to the U.S.

The survey highlights a critical juncture for American science. The disruptions caused by funding cuts and policy shifts are not only impacting current research but also threatening the future of the scientific workforce. Addressing these challenges will require sustained investment, a commitment to scientific integrity, and a renewed focus on supporting the next generation of researchers. The long-term effects – discoveries not made, innovations delayed – won’t be fully visible for years, but the warning signs are clear.

Anil Oza contributed reporting.

STAT’s coverage of the federal government’s impact on the biomedical workforce is supported by a grant from the Dana Foundation and the Boston Foundation. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.