Uncertainty Surrounds US Science Funding as 2026 Approaches

The future of US science funding in 2026 remains uncertain as the second term of President Donald J. Trump and the 119th Congress progress. With a critical deadline approaching, Congress has until January 30, 2026 to finalize appropriations bills that support essential federal science agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Analysts express skepticism about whether this timeline can be met, given the ongoing negotiations between the House and Senate regarding funding allocations.

Alessandra Zimmermann, project director of research and development policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, indicates that the process is likely to extend beyond the January deadline. Currently, both chambers are working on separate versions of the funding bill for the NSF, yet neither proposal appears to cut funding as drastically as the 57% reduction suggested in the president’s budget request from May. The White House has not provided any comment regarding this matter.

Despite the prospect of stable funding levels, securing federal grants may become increasingly challenging for researchers in 2026. According to Robert “Bob” Cook-Deegan, a professor at the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University, the NIH’s implementation of a forward funding strategy in 2025, which involves issuing a lump sum for grants rather than distributing payments over time, could limit the number of new projects supported. The NIH plans to allocate 50% of its appropriated funds to this forward funding approach, resulting in a projected decrease in grant awards from approximately 10,000 to around 6,200, as noted by Jeremy M. Berg, a biochemist from the University of Pittsburgh.

Funding distribution may also depend on the alignment of research fields with the administration’s outlined priorities, including artificial intelligence, quantum science, and nuclear energy. Zimmermann warns that funding for other areas may face cuts to balance these priorities.

As an adjustment to the changing funding landscape, both the NIH and NSF recently revised their grant review processes to expedite approvals for research in designated priority sectors. This move is seen as a transition from a previously unstructured approach to a more transparent and legally protected framework, according to Berg.

In response to these funding challenges, researchers in less prioritized fields may increasingly seek alternative funding sources. Cook-Deegan suggests a possible shift towards privately funded research and development as a strategy to mitigate the impact of federal cuts.

The issue of indirect costs, which cover administrative and infrastructure expenses associated with grants, remains contentious. The current administration has proposed capping these costs at 15% of the total grant amount. This proposal has faced opposition, with federal judges blocking its implementation. In light of this, the Association of American Universities is advocating for a modified model to Congress, as explained by Tobin Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the association.

The US Office of Management and Budget is anticipated to release guidance on indirect costs by the end of January, potentially clarifying the situation for both researchers and institutions navigating the complexities of federal funding.

As discussions continue, the landscape for US science funding in 2026 remains fraught with uncertainty, prompting stakeholders to adapt and explore new avenues for securing essential research support.