Five themes that will dominate Trump’s second year

Next year could be as unpredictable — and impactful — for American science as 2025 has been.

In the turbulent year since President Donald Trump returned to office last January, some of his administration’s actions have faltered — including firing thousands of government scientists, canceling billions of dollars in grants, and defunding elite universities. Many are tied up in the courts, and Trump’s proposals to cut federal science budgets are still pending before a skeptical US Congress. But some science policy observers say the administration’s efforts to reform the way science is conducted and funded by the federal government are just beginning.

Although the US Congress sets the budget for science spending, the Trump administration has “set the tables so firmly that it has political control over almost all science-related issues,” says Wendy Wagner, a science policy specialist at the University of Texas at Austin. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on this and other allegations in this article.

Here’s what American scientists and their global collaborators can expect in 2026.

Congressional support for science

The US Congress could finalize the 2026 federal budget as early as this month, and science advocates hope to avoid the more extreme cuts sought by Trump.

Last year, the administration proposed drastic cuts in science funding, such as a 57% cut to the US National Science Foundation (NSF). Legislation being presented through the US Congress would reject most of these cuts. For example, last Thursday, the House of Representatives approved a budget bill that rejects Trump’s request to cut funding for the National Science Foundation and other agencies. The Senate still must approve the bill.

But the administration may try to block funding for congressionally approved research that does not align with its goals, as it did in 2025. For example, the administration blocked funding appropriated by Congress for diversity research and clean energy development. The White House did not respond to that natureRequested comment on this scenario.

New ideas for overhead costs

Final spending legislation could also save universities billions of dollars by hindering administration efforts to reduce overhead, or “indirect,” costs on federal grants.

Indirect costs, which pay for things like electricity for laboratory buildings, are 40% to 75% of the value of federal research grants. The National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Defense, and Department of Energy (DoE) have sought to cap indirect costs for universities at 15%, and the administration is expected to propose a similar policy across all grant-making agencies as early as this month.

NSF’s plan to cut ‘indirect’ science funding: Will it continue?

In an initiative led by Kelvin Droegemeier, who served as White House science adviser during the first Trump administration, academic societies have put forward an alternative proposal designed to more accurately and transparently account for indirect costs in scientists’ applications for federal funding. They are now pressing lawmakers to put their proposal into federal law.

“It’s very risky,” says Droegemeyer, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “This is mainly about the ability of universities to conduct research.”

In the most recent spending legislation approved by the House, Congress included language that would maintain the current system for calculating indirect costs at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. Science advocates hope that separate legislation, which passed on January 11 but has not yet been approved by either chamber of Congress, will prevent the Trump administration from imposing a government-wide cap of 15%. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Congress’ efforts to block indirect cost proposals.

The rise of political appointees

Policy changes in the past year will make the Trump administration’s priorities central to funding research projects. Among the changes is a measure that gives political appointees the authority to take several key steps.

Historically, civil servants, many of them scientists, have overseen federal grant making. But in August, Trump issued… Expanded executive order It gives political appointees control over grants, from initial funding announcements through final review. The order said the grants should not promote “anti-American values.”

The administration has already begun to reshape the staff of people involved in making grants at the National Institutes of Health. Last year, Trump’s team fired dozens of academic scientists who were scheduled to sit on NIH grant review committees. Employees were directed to be replaced with individuals consistent with management priorities. nature Reported in July.

Trump calls for ‘gold standard science’: How the NIH, NSF, and others are responding

In October, he replaced NIH Director Jayanta Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health’s Environmental Health Institute in Durham, North Carolina, with Kyle Walsh, a neuroepidemiologist with limited experience in government or environmental health who is close to Vice President J.D. Vance. No job opportunity has been posted for this role.

In November, the National Institutes of Health posted job advertisements for directors of 11 of the 27 NIH institutes and centers. The agency has not announced the formation of formal search committees that include prominent scientists, a departure from the process it normally undertakes to fill these roles. These positions, open because previous managers either retired or were fired by management, have not yet been filled.

Trump officials also de-emphasized peer review results in determining which grants to fund, instead directing reviewers to consider factors other than merit, such as an applicant’s geographic location.

With the deprioritization of merit, “NIH’s mission shifts to meeting political expediency, rather than scientific advancement,” Jennifer Troyer, who worked at NIH for 25 years until she resigned last December 31, over these changes, wrote in her resignation letter.

Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the National Institutes of Health, responded to assertions that the NIH grant-making process “reflects an effort to politicize science rather than deal with the facts.” “NIH remains firmly committed to gold standards and unbiased, evidence-based science.”

More changes for universities

Next year could also see new investigations into elite universities, as the Trump administration seeks to correct what it sees as liberal bias on campuses.