By Steven Cohen, Ph.D., Director of the M.S. in Sustainability Management program, School of Professional Studies
Based on what we can see today (mid‑January 2026), U.S. science is at a critical turning point: America’s research and development capacity is still enormous and globally leading, but the federal funding and governance environment has been unusually volatile, and that instability itself does damage even when Congress later “restores” money. In March 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s concerted attack on American science, noting that:
“The Trump administration is attacking one of the foundations of America’s post-World War II prosperity, the partnership between the U.S. federal government and America’s research universities. America’s dominance in global science and engineering is based on: 1. The creative and innovative environment that results from America’s freedom of expression; 2. The basic and applied research that is nurtured by America’s research universities; 3. Immigration of many of the top scientists in the world to America; 4. Private-sector-funded often university-based research, particularly in pharmaceuticals and computer science/engineering, and; 5. The merit-based, peer-reviewed funding sponsored by federal agencies, including NIH, NSF, NASA, NOAA, EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture. The Trump administration has launched a concerted attack on four of these five pillars of American science. This attack on the foundations of American economic dominance, coupled with tariffs and ideological attacks on top-rated universities, are deep and long-term threats to America’s economy and global standing. It is almost as if this has been designed by America’s opponents to undermine American power. The irony of this attack is that in punishing “woke ideology,” the Trump administration is punishing the least ideological part of American universities.”
Much of the attack has been pushed back, and some of the normal political process in science funding has been restored. Many research labs are in red states, and their representatives in Congress understand the centrality of these research institutions to their local, if not national, economy.
A New York Times piece by William J. Broad on January 10th and 12th of 2026 reported on congressional response to the administration’s draconian cuts to science. Broad reported that Congress is largely blocking the biggest proposed federal science cuts, but “normal” has not fully returned. He reported that the Trump administration proposed dropping overall federal science funding to $154 billion from $198 billion (about a 22% reduction), while congressional action was trending toward about $188 billion for federal research (about 4% below the most recent annual budget). That’s a major difference in outcomes—but it still implies reduced purchasing power once inflation and lab cost growth are considered, and it comes after months of disruption that is difficult to unwind. Here at Columbia University, hundreds of scientists were fired in 2025, and many others have left the United States. Broad’s New York Times piece also reported that some of our major science agencies are headed toward modest cuts or modest increases, not the extreme cuts that were proposed. The bipartisan Senate compromise included:
“$24.4 billion for NASA (a 1.6 percent cut), $8.8 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (a 4 percent cut), $8.4 billion for the Department of Energy Office of Science (a 1.9 percent increase), $6.2 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (roughly flat), $1.4 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey (a 2 percent cut) and $1.2 billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (a 2.3 percent increase).”
The National Institutes of Health are still operating under budget uncertainty. Trump has proposed about $28 billion for FY26 compared to about $47 billion in FY25, while Congress is proposing $48.7 billion. Most of those funds (82%) are allocated in research grants that are central to advancing American medical science. The hastily imposed cap on overhead or indirect costs (traditionally about 50-60% of total funding, reduced to a cap of 15%) has been stopped by the courts, although it is probable that future grants will be subject to low overhead caps. Overhead or indirect costs are presented as some kind of boondoggle, but they are spent on labs, equipment, and the cost of complying with a dizzying array of federal rules and mandates.
The instability and disruption of the federal role in science funding, the scientific illiteracy of the President and his Secretary of Health and Human Services, hostility to immigrant scientists, and MAGA’s fundamental mistrust of experts and expertise are all bad signs for America’s continued technological and economic dominance. Despite the self-destructive nonsense from the federal government, a great deal of momentum remains behind American science. According to the National Science Foundation:
“The United States maintained a large and expanding research and experimental development (R&D) enterprise in 2023, with total R&D expenditures reaching $940 billion. The United States had the largest national R&D investment in 2022, using internationally comparable data. In 2023, the United States performed an estimated $940 billion in R&D across all sectors of the economy, up from $892 billion in 2022 in current (nominal) U.S. dollars, an increase of 5% (2% in constant, or inflation-adjusted, 2017 U.S. dollars). When adjusted for international comparability, the United States had $923 billion in gross domestic expenditures on R&D (GERD) in 2022, up 12% in current purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars from 2021. China recorded the second-highest GERD at $812 billion, up 16% in current PPP dollars from 2021.”
The private sector is largely built on scientific innovation. This is particularly true of technology, medical equipment, and pharmaceutical companies. They will continue to invest resources in scientific capability, and their investment continues to grow. But they are dependent on America’s research universities for both knowledge and trained scientists. The disruption of immigration and university lab funding is already having an impact on high-tech companies. Some of it can be overcome, but the need for workarounds, immigration lawyers, and the disruption of traditional sources of labor and knowledge add costs and create unnecessary uncertainty.
Technological development is already uncertain. Experiments are designed to address uncertainty. We really don’t need to add instability to this uncertainty. Political upheaval and scientific illiteracy damage American technological development. When university-based labs are unable to hire foreign talent or waste time dealing with sudden interruptions of funding, they are distracted from their mission and weakened.
It is amazing how much damage the Trump wrecking crew has already done in only one year to American scientific research. Our scientific community’s survival is a testament to its persistence and economic importance. The Congressional push-back on spending cuts is an overdue reassertion of reality. The U.S. federal government has long been in the business of subsidizing science. It started with the creation of land-grant colleges, which were gifts of federal land to states that states used to fund agricultural science and farmer training. The most comprehensive and profound case for federal subsidization of science was made in 1945 in “Science, the Endless Frontier,” a report to FDR by Vannevar Bush, Director of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development. The explicit partnership between the federal government and research universities is 160 years old and was built in explicit response to national needs. It begins with agricultural innovation, continues during World War II and the Cold War with funding of research for national security, and then with medical breakthroughs funded by NIH, and, more recently, with support for advances in computing and communications technology. Scientific dominance was built on predictability, merit-based peer-reviewed funding, autonomous research universities, and full-cost federal funding, including laboratory overhead.
The attack on university-based research has receded a bit as President Trump focuses on immigration enforcement by an increasingly aggressive masked and unaccountable Immigration and Customs Enforcement force, and military action and threats directed toward Venezuela, Iran, and Greenland. The attack on universities and science seems almost quaint when compared to the brutal assault on the people of Minnesota. The general theme of Trump 2 has been endless media presence, constant aggression, mistrust of experts and institutions, and a successful effort to dominate the consciousness of both the American and global public. In some cases, we see successful pushback, but as in the case of science, the damage to institutions and morale may be lasting. We are at a precarious inflection point in American politics, and either 2026 will be a turning point back to normal or the start of a longer period of uncertainty and instability. The importance of scientific research and its economic significance in both conservative and progressive states may serve as a bellwether on the ability of key institutions to survive the current onslaught. At the moment, American scientific research is down, but it is far from out.
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Columbia University M.S. in Sustainability Management program offered by the School of Professional Studies in partnership with the Climate School provides students cutting-edge policy and management tools they can use to help public and private organizations and governments address environmental impacts and risks, pollution control, and remediation to achieve sustainability. The program is customized for working professionals and is offered as both a full- and part-time course of study.
