Congress preserved federal science budgets for 2026, rejecting President Trump's proposed cuts of 40% to 57%. The administration has kept pressing through agency actions. The National Science Foundation diverted $1.4 billion from its research account and awarded no new grants in economics or archaeology this year.
The NSF also has no confirmed director. Brian Stone announced his retirement in October, and Trump's nominee, James O'Neill, has not had a Senate confirmation hearing. Congress returns Nov. 9 to a Dec. 12 government funding deadline, with the midterm elections set to shape the next budget round.
Why it matters
The fight over science funding has moved from Congress to the agencies, where diverted grants and empty labs decide what research actually happens.
Questions about this story
Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.
No questions yet — be the first to ask.
Key Indicators
$8.75B
NSF Budget (FY2026)
3.4% cut from FY2025, versus the proposed 57% reduction to $3.9B
$1.4B
NSF Funds Diverted
About one-fifth of NSF's primary research budget, according to The New York Times
0
New Economics and Archaeology Grants (2026)
NSF made no new awards in either discipline, Nature reported
82-15
Senate Vote
Bipartisan supermajority passed the funding package, with 82 senators supporting
7,800+
Research Grants Disrupted (2025)
Grants canceled or suspended during 2025, totaling nearly $1.4B in lost funding
$27.53B
Total NASA Budget (FY2026)
Combines appropriations and reconciliation funding; largest since FY1998 in inflation-adjusted terms
16 events
Latest: November 3rd, 2026 · 1 week ago
Showing 8 of 16
JK to step
Tap a bar to jump to that date
Jump to
November 2026
NSF Awards No New Economics or Archaeology Grants
LatestResearch Funding
Nature reports that NSF, a major funder of both fields, made no new grants in economics or archaeology in 2026.
October 2026
NSF Director to Retire Without Confirmed Successor
Leadership
Scientific American reports Brian Stone will retire; Trump's nominee, James O'Neill, has not had a Senate confirmation hearing.
NSF Diverts $1.4 Billion From Research
Administration Action
The New York Times reports NSF moved about one-fifth of its primary research budget away from science programs Congress had funded.
NSF Revises Grant Policy, Drops OMB Alignment
Policy Change
After more than 3,000 public comments, NSF updated its proposed grant rules so they no longer track a proposed OMB rule; the revision is under a 30-day White House review.
January 2026
Trump Signs Science Funding Bill
Legislation
President Trump signs H.R. 6938 into law, enacting science agency budgets that largely preserve funding despite his proposed cuts. The White House had indicated senior advisors would recommend signing.
Senate Passes Funding Package 82-15
Legislation
Senate approves the minibus with overwhelming bipartisan support. NSF receives $8.75B (vs. $3.9B proposed), NASA $24.44B, and DOE Office of Science $8.4B (a 2% increase).
House Passes Science Funding Minibus 397-28
Legislation
The House passes H.R. 6938, a three-bill package funding Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water; and Interior agencies for FY2026. Only 28 members vote against.
November 2025
Shutdown Ends After 43 Days
Budget Crisis
Trump signs bill ending the record-setting shutdown. NIH receives temporary funding through January 30, 2026. During the shutdown, 75% of NIH staff were furloughed and no new grants were issued.
October 2025
Government Shutdown Begins
Budget Crisis
Federal government shuts down as Congress fails to pass appropriations bills. The shutdown, driven by disputes over healthcare tax credits, will last 43 days—the longest in U.S. history.
September 2025
Congress Releases Appropriations Bills Rejecting Trump Cuts
Legislation
House and Senate appropriations committees release FY2026 bills that largely preserve science agency budgets, ignoring the administration's proposed reductions.
July 2025
One Big Beautiful Bill Act Signed
Legislation
Trump signs reconciliation bill including $10 billion for NASA programs over six years—funding for Artemis, the International Space Station, and other priorities the administration had proposed cutting.
June 2025
Court Strikes Down NSF Indirect Cost Cap
Legal
Federal Judge Indira Talwani rules NSF's 15% cap is "arbitrary and capricious" and violates federal law. Courts have now blocked indirect cost caps at all four agencies that imposed them.
May 2025
Trump Releases FY2026 Budget Proposal
Budget
Administration proposes cutting NSF by 57% (to $3.9B), NASA science by 47% (to $3.9B), NIH by 40% (to $27.5B), and DOE Office of Science by 14%. Scientists and universities describe the proposal as an existential threat.
NSF Caps Indirect Cost Rates at 15%
Policy Change
NSF announces it will reimburse universities only 15% for indirect costs, down from typical negotiated rates of 50-65%. Universities sue, arguing the cap is arbitrary and violates federal law.
February 2025
DOGE Suspends Research Grants
Administration Action
DOGE begins suspending and canceling grants at NIH and NSF. Over the course of 2025, more than 7,800 grants are disrupted, with 2,600 ultimately terminated representing nearly $1.4 billion in lost funding.
January 2025
Trump Inaugurated, DOGE Begins Agency Reviews
Administration Action
President Trump's second term begins. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) starts reviewing federal contracts and grants across science agencies.
Scenarios
1
FY2027 Brings Renewed Budget Battle
Likely
Discussed by: Science policy analysts at AAAS, AIP, and Nature
The administration may propose similar or deeper cuts in its FY2027 budget request, forcing another congressional showdown. However, with the bipartisan coalition that delivered 82-15 and 397-28 margins still intact, major cuts remain unlikely to survive the legislative process. The precedent of rejecting executive overreach on science funding is now firmly established.
Discussed by: Higher education associations, Nature, and STAT News
Even with appropriations secured, the administration could continue disrupting research through grant freezes, contract cancellations, and policy changes like indirect cost caps—tactics employed throughout 2025. Courts have blocked many such actions, but new approaches may emerge. Over 25,000 federal science workers left agencies in 2025, and workforce attrition could limit agencies' capacity to spend appropriated funds.
3
CHIPS and Science Authorization Renewed or Expanded
Uncertain
Discussed by: Congressional Research Service, bipartisan technology policy groups
The CHIPS and Science Act authorized $81 billion for NSF through FY2027, but actual appropriations have fallen 42% short of authorized levels. Congress could use the FY2026 outcome as momentum to close this gap in future years, particularly as semiconductor competition with China intensifies. Full appropriation to authorized levels would double NSF's budget.
4
Sustained Bipartisan Consensus Shields Science Through 2028
Possible
Discussed by: Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, science advocacy organizations
The overwhelming margins in both chambers suggest science funding has become politically untouchable for most members of Congress. If this coalition holds through the 2026 midterms, science agencies could see stable or growing budgets regardless of executive branch proposals, returning to the 80-year pattern of bipartisan protection that existed before this administration's budget request.
5
NSF Restores Social Science Grants in 2027
Uncertain
Resolves by Q3 2027
Discussed by: Nature and the American Institute of Physics
NSF awarded no new economics or archaeology grants in 2026, and the agency has not said when those programs will resume. A confirmed director or congressional pressure could reopen the pipeline.
Historical Context
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
1 of 3
November 1995 - January 1996
Gingrich Congress Budget Battles (1995-1996)
After Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, Speaker Newt Gingrich pushed for deep spending cuts including elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment and reductions to NASA and NSF. President Clinton vetoed the spending bill, triggering two government shutdowns totaling 27 days. The standoff ended with Congress largely accepting Clinton's budget.
Then
Republicans abandoned most proposed science cuts. The Office of Technology Assessment was eliminated, but NASA and NSF budgets were preserved. Public polling blamed Republicans for the shutdown.
Now
Gingrich later became an advocate for doubling research spending. The episode established that shutdowns carry political costs for the party perceived as causing them.
Why this matters now
Like in 1995, a president signed spending bills that rejected his party's proposed science cuts after a lengthy shutdown. Both cases demonstrated that bipartisan support for federal research can override executive preferences.
2 of 3
1945 - 1950
Post-World War II Research Establishment (1945-1950)
Vannevar Bush's report "Science—The Endless Frontier" proposed federal funding for basic research, leading to creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950. Senator Harley Kilgore and Bush debated whether scientists or elected officials should control research priorities. The compromise created an independent agency with presidential appointment of leadership.
Then
NSF was established with a $3.5 million first-year budget. The Atomic Energy Commission and NIH were expanded, creating the modern federal research enterprise.
Now
For 80 years, federal science funding enjoyed bipartisan growth through Democratic and Republican administrations alike, becoming what analysts call the foundation of American technological leadership.
Why this matters now
The Trump administration's proposed cuts represented the first serious challenge to this 80-year consensus. Congress's bipartisan rejection reaffirmed the post-war compact that federal research investment transcends partisan politics.
3 of 3
1981 - 1989
Reagan-Era Defense vs. Civilian Research (1981-1989)
President Reagan prioritized defense research and the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") while proposing cuts to civilian science. Congress consistently restored funding for NSF, NIH, and other agencies. Reagan's science advisor George Keyworth established the White House Science Council to provide bipartisan input on research priorities.
Then
Civilian research budgets held steady despite proposed cuts. Defense R&D grew significantly.
Now
The pattern of executive proposals and congressional restoration became routine. NIH budget doubled between 1998-2003 with bipartisan support.
Why this matters now
The Reagan precedent showed that presidents can propose science cuts but Congress typically restores them. The 2026 outcome follows this pattern but at unprecedented scale—the gap between proposed and enacted funding was larger than in any Reagan-era budget.
