Science funding was hit in 2025. What does that mean for the future?

Summary

---

Consider This from NPR — Episode Summary

Episode Title: Science funding was hit in 2025. What does that mean for the future?
Host: Juana Summers
Air Date: December 23, 2025

---

Main Theme

This episode investigates the large-scale cuts to U.S. federal science funding in 2025 under the Trump administration, examining their immediate effects and the potential long-term consequences for American scientific leadership, innovation, and future generations of scientists. NPR Health and Science correspondents Rob Stein and Katia Riddle join the conversation, along with voices from the scientific community directly impacted by these changes.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. A Historic Shift in Science Funding (04:40–05:56)

• Post-WWII to Present: Katia Riddle recounts how World War II catalyzed the U.S. government's investment in science, with Vannevar Bush influencing the nation’s lasting commitment to research.

  • Quote: “At the turn of the 20th century, there wasn’t necessarily a marriage between science and government. That changed around the time…of World War II…” — Katia Riddle [04:53]

• Long-term Success: This investment led to breakthroughs like the Internet and genetic medicine.

2. The 2025 Funding Crisis: Immediate Realities (06:02–08:05)

• Irreparable Damage?: Experts express concern that recent policies are breaking the tradition of robust science support in the U.S.

  • Quote: “It’s very tragic and very distressing…It’s just, you know, shooting ourselves in the foot.” — Bruce Alberts, former National Academy of Sciences President [06:19]

• NIH Upheaval: NIH, the world’s biggest biomedical science funder, experienced mass layoffs, canceled grants, and morale collapse.

  • Quote: “The NIH staff of about 20,000 was cut by thousands. Many of those left behind are frightened, angry, and demoralized. And billions of dollars in grants…have been terminated or thrown into chaos.” — Rob Stein [06:41]

3. Personal Toll on Scientists (07:12–07:55)

• Staff Morale Crisis: Sylvia Jo from the National Cancer Institute describes receiving anonymized “drone attacks” (emails terminating grants), leading to her departure after 18 years.
  • Quote: “To have this just like attack from above, it’s just crazy, and it’s just absolutely soul crushing. So that’s why I eventually made the decision to leave.” — Sylvia Jo [07:42]

4. Wide-Ranging Disruption Across Federal Agencies (08:33–09:07)

• Cancellation Cascade: Grants at NSF, NOAA, NASA, and even Veterans Affairs canceled, many DEI-related—over $1 billion lost at NSF alone (1,500 grants).
  • Quote: “The chaos and tumult that Rob is describing has been widespread across nearly every federal agency that is engaged in science.” — Katia Riddle [08:33]

5. Administration’s Justification & Response (09:11–10:22)

• Push for ‘Innovation’: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, new NIH Director, claims the shakeup is overdue and intended to foster risk-taking and address stagnant U.S. life expectancy.

  • Quote: “Some changes have happened at the NIH…I think were long overdue. Changes to…fund more innovative science, be less risk averse…because life expectancy…has been flatlined since 2010.” — Dr. Jay Bhattacharya [09:35]

• Denies Politicization: He asserts that neither the White House nor HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has interfered in scientific priorities.

  • Quote: “I think that would be a red line. I have not seen that from Secretary Kennedy or the President.” — Dr. Jay Bhattacharya [10:05]

6. View from the Ground: Young Scientists (10:33–11:57)

• Pipeline in Peril: Young researchers like Brandon Coventry, whose NIH grants were revoked, are now considering moving abroad for stable research careers.

  • Quote: “We've lost that sort of pipeline and certainty…that's really been a staple irregardless of what administration has been in office. Like, this is the first time where that's just been out of whack.” — Brandon Coventry [11:21]

• Lasting Distrust: Coventry and peers worry that, even if funding returns, trust and stability will not.

  • Quote: “Even if the money spigot is turned back on…it's going to take more than that to rebuild…faith in the system.” — Katia Riddle [11:57]

---

Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

• On the loss of global standing:
  “They’re saying, I can go to Europe because ESA is funding research projects, or I can go to Australia…China or Japan, India. They’re all…expanding their science research.”
  — Dr. Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado [01:52]

• On science’s role in inspiring future generations:
  “Space exploration inspires and motivates people to do their math homework and do their physics and move into technical areas.”
  — Dr. Fran Bagenal [02:25]

• On broken trust in the system:
  “The bigger question is whether the trust in this grand bargain that made America the greatest scientific powerhouse has been fractured beyond repair.”
  — Rob Stein [12:06]

---

Key Timestamps

• 01:34–02:58 — Dr. Fran Bagenal describes the flight of young talent and the loss of future inspiration due to funding cuts.
• 04:53–05:46 — Katia Riddle and Bruce Alberts explain the historical context for public science funding.
• 06:41–07:55 — Rob Stein describes traumatic NIH cuts and the direct impact on long-standing staff members.
• 08:33–09:07 — Disruptions detailed across the federal research ecosystem.
• 09:35–10:22 — Dr. Jay Bhattacharya offers the administration’s defense and vision for the NIH.
• 11:21–11:57 — Brandon Coventry shares a young scientist’s uncertainty and potential plans to leave the U.S.

---

Conclusion

The episode paints a sobering picture: major U.S. cutbacks to science funding are causing real-time loss of talent, global standing, and the trust of the next generation of scientists. While government officials tout the possibility of a needed culture shift, those on the ground describe the present climate as “soul crushing” and unsettling in ways not seen before. As NPR underscores, the bigger question moving forward may be whether America's unique contract with its own scientific future can be repaired at all.

---

Correspondents:

• Juana Summers (Host)
• Rob Stein (Health & Science)
• Katia Riddle (Health & Science)

Featured voices:

• Dr. Fran Bagenal (Astrophysicist, University of Colorado)
• Bruce Alberts (Former NAS President)
• Sylvia Jo (Grant Manager, National Cancer Institute)
• Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (NIH Director)
• Brandon Coventry (Young Scientist, University of Wisconsin-Madison)

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey there, it's Juana Summers. Before the show today, let's talk a little more about public media and what makes NPR unique. The Public broadcasting Act of 1967 said that local public media stations should be responsive to their communities. To this day, they are. NPR member stations are reporting from town council meetings and state houses in many towns and regions where local newspapers have stopped publishing. And as digital paywalls rise elsewhere, we we provide news and information to everyone for free, regardless of their ability to pay. This is a commitment that will never change at npr. But with federal funding for public media eliminated, we now rely on your support to bring you. Consider this more than ever. That's why we're so grateful to NPR supporters and other listeners who have already stepped up to donate. Listeners like Evelyn in Hawaii, who says public radio is the nation's voice and at the same time, the voice of each town, city and state. Evelyn, thank you so much. We are so proud that the NPR network reaches more than 99% of the population. That's pretty cool. You can help keep this free public service available to everyone today by signing up for npr. Plus, it's a simple recurring donation that gets you perks to NPR's podcasts. Just join us at plus.npr.org all right, let's get into today's show. Fran Bagginal is worried we are bleeding.

[B]

Young scientists like crazy.

[A]

Baganal is an astrophysicist at the University of Colorado. She works on the Juno mission, studying Jupiter. And this year's been tough. Funding for fields like hers has been facing a lot of uncertainty, and she says that's driving young scientists away.

[B]

They're saying, I can, I, I can go to Europe because ESA is funding research projects, or I can go to Australia because they're running, or I can go to China or Japan, India. They're all working in and expanding their their science research.

[A]

Baganal says that not only will the United States lose its competitive edge, she also worries about the impact the loss of opportunity in areas like space expl will have on younger generations.

[B]

What really excites kids is to hear about space research. You know, that's cool and neat, right? You know, if you say to someone, you could operate a robot on Mars or something like that, they'll get excited and do their math homework. I know it may not seem like a direct connection, but it is, in fact, huge that space exploration inspires and motivates people to do their math homework and do their physics and move into technical areas.

[A]

The United States has long been the preeminent place for scientific research. But with federal funding uncertain at best, what are the real costs of cuts? From npr, I'm Juana Summers.

[C]

This message comes from Capital One. With the Capital One Saver card, earn unlimited 3% cash back on dining and entertainment.

[D]

Capital One what's in your wallet? Terms apply [e-mail] this message comes from.

[E]

NPR sponsor Adobe, introducing the all new Adobe Acrobat studio. Now with AI powered PDF spaces. Need to turn 100 pages of market research into 5 insights with a click templates for a sales proposal that'll close that deal or an AI specialist to tailor the tone of your market report. You can do all that with the all new Adobe Acrobat Studio. Learn [e-mail] do that with Acrobat. This message comes from NPR sponsor Shopify. Start selling with Shopify today. Whether you're a garage entrepreneur or IPO ready, Shopify is the only tool you need to start, run and grow your business without the struggle. Go to shopify.com NPR.

[A]

It's consider this from NPR. If we're taking stock of winners and losers in 2025, science is on the list of losers. The Trump administration upended federal funding for all kinds of scientific pursuits. NPR health and science correspondents Rob Stein and Katie Riddle have come to talk about the implications of these cuts. Hi to both of you.

[D]

Hey wanna.

[A]

Hi, Juana. Hey there. So let's start, if we can, with just a little history of science in America. My understanding is that World War II was a turning point in this country's investment in science. Katie, tell us a little bit more about that.

[F]

Yeah, that's right. You know, at the turn of the 20th century, there wasn't necessarily a marriage between science and government. That changed around the time. Like you said of World War II, as part of the war effort, the US plowed money into scientific research, and it led to advancements like penicillin becoming widely available and the development of the first nuclear weapons. I talked to this historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Patrick McCrae, who gives a lot of the credit for our existing system to one man, Vannevar Bush. He wrote a report calling on the US to increase significantly investments. And that is what we did.

[D]

Health, economy, and national security. Those are the three main things that science provided for us after 1945. And those, not surprisingly, were the three main things that Bush argued for in his report that science would provide.

[F]

Today, the US Is the biggest investor in research and development in the world. This investment has led to tremendous breakthroughs like the foundation of The Internet and genetic medicine.

[A]

Rob, with everything we've seen this year, is there a sense that the country's commitment to science is in doubt?

[D]

Yeah. Many people who Katia and I talked to for this reporting expressed grave concerns that this grand American scientific experiment is suffering irreparable damage. Here's Bruce Alberts from the University of California, San Francisco. He ran the National Academy of Sciences for more than a decade.

[G]

It's very tragic and very distressing where everybody cares about US prosperity and US leadership in the world. It's just, you know, shooting ourselves in the foot.

[A]

Let's now dig into some of the details. Rob, you have been covering the National Institutes of Health, which is, of course, the largest public funder of biomedical science in the world. Bring us up to speed, if you can, about what's been happening there.

[D]

It's been a tumultuous, traumatic year, not just for the scientists at the NIH itself, but also for many of the thousands of scientists around the world whose work lives and dies on NIH funding. The NIH staff of about 20,000 was cut by thousands. Many of those left behind are frightened, angry and demoralized. And billions of dollars in gr everything from, you know, vaccines and infectious diseases to diabetes and cancer have been terminated or thrown into chaos.

[A]

How are staffers coping with all of this?

[D]

It's been rough. Sylvia Jo manages grants at the National Cancer Institute. She told me about getting anonymous internal emails terminating research just because it might mention something that sounds like diversity, equity and inclusion, you know, dei. She's not speaking on behalf of the agency.

[A]

What we call drone attacks coming from above, you know, no names, no email addresses. There's no human, accountable human being that we know of.

[F]

So to have this just like attack.

[A]

From above, it's just crazy, and it's just absolutely soul crushing. So that's why I eventually made the decision to leave. I just, you know, can't take it anymore.

[D]

She's leaving the NIH next month after 18 years.

[A]

I have to say, it's really striking to hear her describe this as soul crushing. Is that something that you're hearing from other people as well?

[D]

Oh, absolutely. I asked Dr. Francis Collins about this. He ran the NIH for a dozen years through Democratic and Republican administrations.

[G]

What was done this year was basically.

[D]

Move fast and break things without a whole lot of interest in what the consequences might be. I just find it heartbreaking, and that's a pretty widely held view.

[A]

Kadia, you've covered other federal agencies this year. Where else has science been disrupted under this administration?

[F]

The chaos and tumult that Rob is describing that has been widespread across nearly every federal agency that is engaged in science. The National Science Foundation, national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, or NASA, even the Department of Veterans affairs has seen studies disrupted and major research projects put into limbo, with staffing freezes and ongoing funding uncertain. At NSF alone, there were more than 1500 grants canceled, many of them projects related to DEI. That represents more than $1 billion in funding.

[A]

So, Rob, what do Trump administration officials have to say about all of this?

[D]

They say the nation's scientific institutions, including medical and public health agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and yes, even the NIH, desperately need shaking up. I talked about this with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. He's the NIH director. He told me knows morale suffered, but argues he's turned that around and is reinvigorating the nih.

[C]

Some changes have happened at the nih, which I think were long overdue. Changes to change the culture of the NIH, to fund more innovative science, be less risk averse in the portfolio of scientific projects we fund because life expectancy in this country has been flatlined since 2010. The research ideas that we've had, I mean, there are a lot of amazing innovations, but they have not translated over to better health for Americans.

[D]

And he chafes at suggestions that the White House or Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Have politicized the NIH.

[C]

Secretary Kennedy has not asked me to put my thumb on the scales of any scientific project, to say, you must have this scientific project come out this way or that way. I think that would be a red line. I have not seen that from Secretary Kennedy or the President.

[D]

Dr. Bhattacharya argues the US remains a biomedical beacon for the rest of the world.

[C]

I think the future is bright. I mean, there's still no better place on Earth to do. Biomedical science, if you're a young scientist in this country, is still by far the very best place on Earth to do science.

[A]

So that's the view from the top at nih. But I wonder, what are you hearing from young scientists? Do they agree that this is still the best place to be?

[F]

A lot of the scientists I talk to do not. I spoke with one young scientist named Brandon Coventry, and he's not sure. He is a recipient of grant funding from nih, some of it which was recently revoked. He grew up here in a small town in Illinois. He's now at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He researches treatments that could help people with diseases like Parkinson's and epilepsy. Coventry is at a pivotal place in his career. He's looking to start his own lab, take a tenure track position somewhere and really put down roots. He says after watching what's happened this year, he does not trust that the United States is going to be a sustainable place to do this.

[G]

And we've lost that sort of pipeline and certainty of the pipeline that's really been a staple irregardless of what administration has been in office. Like this is the first time where that's just been out of whack.

[A]

So, Katia, what's he doing?

[F]

Yeah, he's considering leaving the country, possibly for Canada or somewhere else. He says this desire to leave is something that he hears from many of his peers as well.

[G]

I think for many of us, this is a calling to make the world a better place, and we would love to do that in our homes, but we're going to go to places where we can do that.

[F]

Coventry says even if the money spigot is turned back on and the feed in a future administration, it's going to take more than that to rebuild his faith in the system.

[D]

And you know, Juana, the bigger question is whether the trust in this grand bargain that made America the greatest scientific powerhouse has been fractured beyond repair.

[A]

NPR health and science correspondents Rob Stein and Acadia Riddle, thanks to both of you.

[D]

You bet.

[F]

Thanks, Juana.

[A]

This episode was produced by Michael Levitt with audio engineering by Zoe Vangenhoven. It was edited by Sarah Handel, Scott Hensley and Amina Khan. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun. It's Consider this from npr, I'm Juana Summers.

[E]

This message comes from Monarch. Take control of holiday spending with Monarch, the personal finance tool that brings your entire financial life together in one dashboard. Get a full year for Half off only $50. With promo code [e-mail] Understand where your money has been and where it's heading in 2026 and beyond with their latest AI features built on the collective wisdom of certified financial planners and Financial Advisors. Get 50% off with code [e-mail] 2026.

[F]

Will mark NPR's first year in half a century without federal funding. But what won't change is this public radio belongs to the public. Your monthly investment, no matter the size, is how we will stay resilient and how we'll plan for challenges to come. Help us start the new year defunded but not defeated.

[E]

Visit donate.NPR.org Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks. Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music, or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get consider this [e-mail] that's plus.NPR.org.