‘This year nearly broke me as a scientist’ – US researchers reflect on how 2025’s science cuts have changed their lives

From start to finish, 2025 was a devastating year for American scientists.

January saw the abrupt suspension of key operations at the National Institutes of Health, disrupting not only ongoing clinical trials and other studies but also blocking grant review and other activities necessary to conduct research. Around the same time, the Trump administration issued executive orders declaring there were only two genders and ending DEI programs. The Trump administration also removed public data and analysis tools related to health disparities, climate change, and environmental justice, among other databases.

February and March were marked by a sharp reduction in federal support for infrastructure essential to the conduct of research, as well as the withdrawal of federal funding from several universities.

And in the following months, billions of dollars in grants supporting research projects across multiple disciplines, institutions and states were cut. These include funds already spent on ongoing studies that had to be interrupted before completion. Federal agencies, including NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, have been reduced or even completely dismantled.

The Conversation asked researchers from various fields to share how the Trump administration’s science funding cuts have affected them. All describe the significant losses they and their communities have suffered. But many also express their determination to continue doing work they believe is crucial for a healthier, safer and more just society.

Pipeline of new scientists cut

Carrie McDonough, associate professor of chemistry, Carnegie Mellon University

People are exposed to thousands of synthetic chemicals every day, but the health risks these chemicals pose are poorly understood. I was a co-investigator on a $1.5 million grant from the EPA to develop machine learning techniques for rapid chemical safety assessment. My lab was two months into its project when it ended in May because it no longer aligned with agency priorities, despite the administration’s Make America Healthy Again report specifically highlighting the use of AI to rapidly assess children’s chemical exposures as an area of ​​focus.

Labs like mine are typically pipelines for early-career scientists to enter federal research laboratories, but the uncertain future of federal research agencies has disrupted this process. I see recent graduates losing their federal jobs and countless opportunities disappearing. Students who would have been the next generation of scientists helping shape environmental regulations to protect Americans have had their careers altered forever.

I divide my time between research, teaching, and advocating for academic freedom and the economic importance of science funding because I care deeply about the scientific and academic excellence of this country and its effects on the world. I owe it to my students and the next generation to make sure people know what the issues are.

Fewer people trained to treat addictions

Cara Poland, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology, Michigan State University

I lead a program that has trained 20,000 healthcare professionals across the United States on how to effectively and compassionately treat addiction in their communities. Most doctors are not trained to treat addiction, leaving patients without life-saving care and leading to preventable deaths.

This work is personal: my brother died from a substance use disorder. Behind every statistic is a family like mine, hoping to receive care that could save the life of their loved one.

With our federal funding reduced by 60%, my team and I are unable to continue to grow our Addiction Medicine program and enroll medical schools and clinicians in our program.

Meanwhile, drug-related deaths continue to rise as the U.S. healthcare system loses its capacity to provide effective treatments. These setbacks ripple through hospitals and communities, perpetuating treatment gaps and worsening the addiction crisis.

Communities must face extreme weather alone

Brian G. Henning, professor of philosophy and environmental studies and sciences, Gonzaga University

In 2021, a thermal dome settled over the Northwest, breaking temperature records and causing deaths. Since that devastating summer, my team and I have been working with the City of Spokane to prepare for the climate challenges ahead.

We and the city received a $19.9 million grant from the EPA to support projects that reduce pollution, increase community climate resilience, and build capacity to address environmental and climate justice challenges.

Just as our work was about to begin, the Trump administration canceled our funding in May. As a result, the five public facilities that were intended to serve as gathering centers for community members during extreme weather conditions will be less equipped to handle power outages. Approximately 300 low-income households will not benefit from effective updates to their HVAC systems. And our local economy will lose the jobs and investments that these projects would have generated.

Despite this setback, work will continue. My team and I care about our neighbors and remain committed to helping our community become more resilient to extreme heat and wildfires. This includes seeking new funding to support this work. It will be smaller, slower and with fewer resources than expected, but that doesn’t deter us.

LGBTQ+ people made invisible

Nathaniel M. Tran, assistant professor of health policy and administration, University of Illinois at Chicago

This year almost broke me as a scientist.

Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration began targeting research projects focused on LGBTQ+ health for early termination. I felt demoralized after receiving termination letters from the NIH for my own project examining access to preventive services and home care among LGBTQ+ older adults. Disrupting publicly funded research projects wastes millions of dollars on existing contracts.

Then news broke that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer process or make public the LGBTQ+ demographic data that public health researchers like me rely on.

But instead of becoming demoralized, I became emboldened: I will not be erased, and I will not let the LGBTQ+ community fade away. These setbacks have renewed my commitment to advancing public health, guided by rigorous science, collaboration, and equity.

Pediatric brain cancer research stalled

Rachael Sirianni, professor of neurological surgery, UMass Chan School of Medicine

My laboratory designs new treatments against cancer. We are one of the few groups in the country focused on treating pediatric cancer that has spread to the brain and spinal cord. This research is being crushed by the broad destabilizing impacts of federal cuts to the NIH.

Compared to last year, I’m working with about 25% of our funding and less than 50% of our staff. We cannot complete our studies, publish results, or pursue new ideas. We have lost technology in development. Students and colleagues are leaving as training opportunities and hope for the future of science dry up.

I’m faced with impossible questions about what to do next. Should I use my dwindling research funds to maintain staff who took years to train? Keep the equipment running? Bet everything on one last risky study? There simply aren’t any good choices left.

Scientific inequalities are getting worse

Stephanie Nawyn, associate professor of sociology, Michigan State University

Many people have asked me how the end of my National Science Foundation grant to improve work culture in academic departments affected me, but I think that’s the wrong question. This has certainly led to the loss of publications, summer funding for faculty and graduate students, and opportunities to make working conditions at my and my colleagues’ institutions more equitable and inclusive.

But the biggest effects will come from widespread cuts across science, including the elimination of NSF programs dedicated to improving gender equity in science and technology. These cuts are part of a broader dismantling of science and higher education that will have cascading negative effects that will last for decades.

Knowledge production infrastructures that took years to build cannot be rebuilt overnight.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent, nonprofit news organization that brings you trusted facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Carrie McDonough, Carnegie Mellon University; Brian G. Henning, Gonzaga University; Cara Poland, Michigan State University; Nathaniel M. Tran, United

Learn more:

Carrie McDonough receives funding from the US EPA. She previously led the Pittsburgh chapter of Stand Up for Science and volunteered with Indivisible Pittsburgh, Casa San Jose, and Pittsburgh Healthcare Workers and Scientists.

Brian G. Henning has received funding from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Cara Poland receives funding from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the State of Michigan, and SAMHSA. She has previously received funding from NIDA, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan and the Michigan Opioid Partnership. She is vice president and chair of legislative and public policy for the American Society of Addiction Medicine and chair of the Michigan State Medical Society’s Opioid Task Force.

Nathaniel M. Tran receives funding from the National Institute on Aging, the RRF Foundation on Aging, and the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Rachael Sirianni receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and Ian’s Friends Foundation. She is a board member of the nonprofit fundraising group Cofund Connect, Inc. She has previously received funding from the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, the Ben and Catherine Ivy Foundation, the Morgan Adams Foundation, the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Foundation, and the Matthew Larson Foundation.

Stephanie J. Nawyn has received funding from the National Science Foundation.