Uncertain Future for US Science Funding as 2026 Approaches

As the second administration of Donald J. Trump and the 119th Congress advance into their second year, the landscape of science funding in the United States is becoming increasingly uncertain. Analysts indicate that significant challenges lie ahead for federal science agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as Congress faces a deadline to finalize appropriations by January 30, 2026.

Under the current continuing resolution, lawmakers must navigate the complexities of budget negotiations, particularly concerning funding for the NSF. According to Alessandra Zimmermann, project director of research and development policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, it is unlikely that Congress will complete this process in time. The House and Senate are still reconciling their versions of the appropriations bill, yet neither proposal reflects the substantial funding cuts of up to 57% suggested in the president’s budget request from May.

Even if funding levels remain stable, the process of securing federal grants is expected to become more challenging in 2026. Robert “Bob” Cook-Deegan, a professor at the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University, notes that the NIH has recently shifted toward a forward funding model, which provides researchers with a lump sum instead of distributing payments over time. While this approach could streamline funding in the long run, it may result in fewer new projects being funded in the interim. The NIH’s congressional budget justification indicates that the agency plans to allocate 50% of its appropriated funds to this forward funding, potentially reducing the number of grants awarded from approximately 10,000 to about 6,200, as analyzed by Jeremy M. Berg, a biochemist and former director of the US National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

Researchers may find themselves at a disadvantage if their work does not align with the administration’s current priorities, which include fields such as artificial intelligence, quantum science, and nuclear energy. Zimmermann warns that funding for other areas may be reduced to accommodate these preferences.

To expedite research approvals in priority areas, both the NIH and NSF announced modifications to their grant review procedures in December. These changes aim to formalize the ad hoc reductions experienced in 2025, reflecting a more systematic and transparent approach to grant management. Berg emphasized the importance of these changes, stating, “They’re correcting that so they can now do what they were doing but do it in a way that’s much more explicit and transparent and legally protected.”

In light of the funding landscape, researchers in less favored fields may increasingly seek out private funding options. Cook-Deegan predicts a shift toward privately funded research and development as academics adapt to the changing funding environment.

Furthermore, the ongoing debate over indirect costs—funds intended for institutional administrative and infrastructure expenses—continues to complicate the funding picture. The administration has proposed capping these costs at 15% of the total grant amount, a move that has faced legal challenges. Tobin Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the Association of American Universities, mentioned that a coalition representing universities is presenting an alternative funding model to Congress.

The US Office of Management and Budget is expected to provide guidance on indirect costs by the end of January, a development that could further influence the funding strategies of federal science agencies and their researchers.

As the deadline for appropriations approaches, the uncertainty surrounding science funding for 2026 remains a critical concern for researchers and institutions across the United States.