Déjà vu All Over Again: The White House's Diminished Vision for Science in FY 2027

On Friday April 3^rd, the White House released a clear indication that it seeks to diminish American leadership in science spanning NIH, NASA, EPA, NSF (and beyond). The budget proposal includes massive reductions in support for NIH (nearly $6B cut), NASA ($5.6B – including a $3.4B cut to the science directorate), NSF ($4.6B cut) in addition to billions cut to EPA, NOAA, DOE, NIST, and beyond.

These kinds of reductions reflect a fundamentally different vision for science and technology development, one out of step with historical support that will drive the US further behind global competitors and waste investments already underway.

As one telling example, the White House FY 2027 budget proposal would drastically reduce the number of people involved in National Science Foundation activities by 200,000+. That means tens of thousands fewer jobs, lost training opportunities, and missed opportunities for young people to build a pathway for mission-driven, meaningful careers.

Does this table look familiar? Unfortunately, it should. The White House FY 2026 budget proposed to reduce the number of people involved in NSF activities from 330,000 (in FY 2024) to 90,000 in FY 2026. I wrote about the previous budget proposal and its flaws back in September of last year:

Yet again, the White House holds its beacons of innovation with disdain and treats agencies as targets for elimination rather than as opportunities to advance America’s interests and global leadership. The difference in numbers also indicates the impact of sliding baselines. It appears the White House has already baked in a 10% reduction in engagement in their FY 2025 estimate compared to FY 2024. They would like to go even further, dramatically slashing the innovation engine of American R&D. Even if reversed by Congress in terms of top-line numbers, these budget plans are already disrupting the pathway and scope of opportunities for use-driven basic research – with reduced staff and far fewer grants supported this year compared to prior years.

This type of budget request is already causing disruptions at NSF.

In a particularly egregious case “NSF leadership” informed staff that they “would dissolve the agency’s Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences directorate based on the budget request.” Read this quote again. This is a White House FY 2027 budget request that should be rejected, even as it causes havoc in the meantime. But NSF “leaders” are going to dissolve a directorate based on a request alone? This plan is unprecedented and suggests that current NSF leadership intends to comply with White House requests in advance and ignore budget appropriations already in place.

I will be diving into the budgets in the days to come, including sharing perspectives as part of our Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project. But, there should be no doubt: the budget reflects White House priorities and should force major science groups still using a pre-2025 playbook to reassess their strategic assumptions.

Share

The White House wants to disrupt and dismantle American leadership in science.

I recognize this statement remains hard for many to stomach. What is the point of this self-inflicted crisis? Why intentionally undermine decades of American leadership, a network of world-leading research institutions, and a pathway for young people to launch meaningful careers in communities all across the United States?

The rationale behind undermining American leadership in R&D span grievance, anti-science, and an ideological commitment to shrinking government. But if it isn’t quite clear enough, the official NSF website releasing the Fiscal Year 2027 budget request to Congress includes the following preamble:

“The U.S. National Science Foundation’s Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request reflects a strategic alignment of resources in a constrained fiscal environment while eliminating woke and weaponized grant programs that previously funded radical DEI projects.”

The invocation of terms “woke”, “weaponized”, and “radical DEI” mirror the scare tactics Sen. Ted Cruz used to describe research on self-driving cars and eclipses in early 2025. The politicization of science comes with costs to communities nationwide. If the administration has an alternative, constructive vision, then they should share it. Building takes time and expertise. Instead, dismantling is narrower, nihilistic, and readily accessible to loyalists.

For those who think that the White House learned its lesson and that Congressionally approved top-line budget numbers would steer the administration to historical norms - it is time to reassess priors, stop the early ‘celebrations’, and stop inviting architects of the dismantling of science for fireside chats and plenary talks at events intended to rebuild excellence, integrity, and trust. They don’t have the same goals in mind.

Budgets reflect values. The White House’s FY 2027 budget should come as no surprise – this is an administration guided by the premise that “the universities are the enemy” and acting accordingly. To those trying to support people and research projects in a diminishing landscape of federally funded research opportunities, the chaos and harm has been apparent from the start. Major American science organizations have a role to play in response, but only if they decide to fight. If not, they should hand over the reins of leadership to nimble organizations who will.