By Kritika Agarwal
Earlier this year, the White House released President Trump’s budget proposal for the next fiscal year. The proposal included steep cuts to scientific research and sparked widespread concern across the scientific community in the United States. Now, a new analysis shows that, if enacted, the cuts would represent the most dramatic reduction in federal support for research and development (R&D) in modern U.S. history, threatening the nation’s global leadership in science, technology, and innovation.
Released by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the analysis shows that President Trump’s budget proposal would reduce federal spending on R&D by nearly a quarter (-22%) compared to last year. The reductions are largely concentrated on the “research” portion of R&D – the White House is proposing to reduce federal spending on applied research by 38%, on basic research by 34%, and on R&D facilities by 33%. In comparison, the “development” portion of R&D will see a 7% reduction.
“Basic research” refers to research that seeks to expand fundamental knowledge without an immediate practical application in mind, while “applied research” aims to solve specific problems using existing knowledge and to produce usable technologies or actionable solutions.
Applied research often builds upon years of basic research. In fact, most modern technologies and medical advancements have only been made possible through investments in basic research.
For example, as Arizona State University President Michael Crow pointed our earlier this year, the iPhone wouldn’t be possible without the work of thousands of researchers who have worked on the underlying technology for years. “There is not one aspect of … [the] iPhone 16 which has not been deeply empowered and enabled by at one point or another some academic research activity [or] some academic technological development, and no one knows any of that,” he said. University research is the “invisible hand” behind innovation and scientific advancements, he added.
Cuts to basic research are particularly alarming, since the federal government is the largest funder of such research. As the National Science Board noted in a policy brief last year, “only the federal government can take the kinds of strategic risks necessary to invest long-term across STEM fields and fuel new knowledge with potentially big returns for the country.” Federally funded basic research also provides hands-on research opportunities for students and early-career scientists and, unlike research funded by industry, can be aimed at pressing national priorities and conducted in an open environment, with results and data that is easily accessible to other researchers and the public.
AAU Senior Vice President for Government Relations and Public Policy Toby Smith told The New York Times that AAAS’s analysis shows that, if adopted, the Trump administration’s budget “would essentially end America’s longstanding role as the world leader in science and innovation.” He added that AAU is working with Congress to develop “a funding plan for strategic investment that would help to sustain continued American scientific leadership rather than destroying it.”
Early signs indicate that the Senate might reject the White House’s initial proposals. The Senate Appropriations Committee met last week to consider the FY26 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill, which included only limited adjustments in funding for both the National Science Foundation and NASA compared to FY25.
According to legislator’s verbal statements, the CJS bill proposes $9 billion in funding for the NSF (compared to $3.9 billion requested by President Trump) and $24.5 billion in funding for NASA (compared to the requested $18.8 billion.)
While the committee has yet to pass the bill, its consideration is positive news for the scientific research community. As AAU President Barbara R. Snyder said, “Given current budget constraints and the significant budget cuts proposed by the Administration, we are pleased the Senate Appropriations Committee was able to maintain funding at current levels for both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA.” She added: “We commend the committee for recognizing the importance of these critical research agencies to sustaining America’s global scientific and technological leadership.”
Kritika Agarwal is assistant vice president for communications at AAU.