RISKS TO SCIENCE & PUBLIC HEALTHFunding Cuts, Policy Shifts, and the Erosion of U.S. Scientific and Public Health Capacity
The U.S. continues to face mounting threats to its health, scientific enterprise, and national security. A recent report warns that proposed FY 2026 budget cuts to the National Science Foundation (NSF) could reduce its funding by more than half – from $9 billion in FY 2025 to under $4 billion. If passed by Congress, these cuts would result in an estimated ~$11 billion in economic losses.
The U.S. continues to face mounting threats to its health, scientific enterprise, and national security. A recent report by the Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project (SCIMaP) warns that proposed FY 2026 budget cuts to the National Science Foundation (NSF) could reduce its funding by more than half – from $9 billion in FY 2025 to under $4 billion.
Pandora Reportwrites tht
If passed by Congress, these cuts would result in an estimated ~$11 billion in economic losses, given findings that $1 invested in federal R&D funding returns ~$2.25 in economic activity. These proposed cuts could also eliminate up to 75,000 research jobs and limit opportunities for more than 150,000 students and educators in STEM programs nationwide. Such reductions would not only stall decades of progress in innovation, economic growth, and workforce development, but also reflect a broader trend of fiscal and administrative changes that are reshaping federal support for both scientific research and public health nationwide.
Just as federal R&D funding is at risk, public health funding and operational capacity are also under unprecedented strain. A report by Trust for America’s Health examines how the White House’s FY 2026 budget proposal could impact the CDC and HHS, noting a 25% reduction in HHS discretionary funding, and a 53% budget cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). These cuts would eliminate 61 CDC programs and lay off an additional 16% of its staff, actions that public health leaders warn could severely undermine disease prevention and exacerbate chronic illness. The Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) would be eliminated entirely, and HHS divisions would be consolidated into new entities such as the Administration for a Healthy America. Interviews with state and local public health leaders underscore the operational strain caused by the rapid pace of these changes. As Katherine Wells, Dr PH, Director of Public Health for the City of Lubbock, Texas, explain: “What was really difficult was the quickness of all of this. If I had been given some runway to plan, if I had been told that a grant was ending in six months, I would have had time to figure out some strategies to keep work going. … I’m going to be having a very tough conversation with our Board of Health about what our public health priorities are in this new environment—what do we keep, what do we let go?”
Similar pressures are emerging in the Trump administration’s approach to federal research funding in higher education, where policy priorities are now shaping grant eligibility and distribution. According to The Washington Post: “The White House is developing a plan that could change how universities are awarded research grants, giving a competitive advantage to schools that pledge to adhere to the values and policies of the Trump administration on admissions, hiring and other matters.” Universities may be asked to certify that admissions and hiring decisions are based solely on “merit,” rather than racial or ethnic backgrounds; that foreign student applications are reviewed under new criteria; and that tuition costs reflect educational value. Critics argue such measures represent an overreach of federal authority and a politicization of the grant process. Ted Mitchell, President of the American Council on Education, described the proposal as an “assault… on institutional autonomy, on ideological diversity, on freedom of expression and academic freedom,” warning that grants would no longer be awarded on scientific merit but on “ideological fealty.”
These policy shifts also coincide with real-world operational challenges at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Mass layoffs, funding freezes, and administrative constraints threatened the agency’s ability to support research, yet NIH staff worked around the clock to distribute nearly $48 billion in grant funding to labs nationwide. In an effort to maintain continuity, the agency implemented a new budgeting strategy, awarding full multiyear budgets upfront. While this approach allowed critical research to continue, it left hundreds of highly rated grants unfunded, including important studies on cancer, aging, and diabetes, highlighting the difficult trade-offs imposed by fiscal constraints and administrative pressures.
Further Reading
· “NIH Committee Green-Lighted Wuhan Coronavirus Experiments Despite Concerns, Emails Show,” Lewis Kamb, U.S. Right to Know
· “Harvard Recommended for Exclusion From Federal Funding,” Bloomberg
· “What Trump’s New Tariffs Mean for Pharmaceuticals and Patented Drugs,” Vivian Ho, Victoria Craw, and Daniel Gilbert, WP
· “Climate Change and Health: Understanding the Ripple Effects on Communities and Care,” UHF
· “Public Trust in Science Has Declined Since COVID – Virologists Need to Unite Around Safety Standards,” Melanie Ott, Olivier Schwartz, and Alex Sigal, Nature
· “Strategies for Pandemics and Grand Strategy for Disease Health Security,” Bradley F. Dickey, Crassh
This article is published courtesy of the Pandora Report.
