How U.S. Science Is Responding to Federal Funding Cuts

Report Summary

The federal funding crisis in U.S. science is no longer unfolding quietly. The headlines are familiar: federal research budgets are shrinking, morale is plummeting, and early-career scientists are rethinking their future.

So what are scientists doing now, and what are they planning for the immediate future? To find out, we surveyed 311 scientists and institutional leaders across the U.S., from postdocs to deans of research, to understand how they’re navigating this pivotal moment.

The findings are sobering:

• 57% of non-PI staff scientists and postdoctoral researchers are considering leaving US academia
• 87% of principal investigators report their labs are already experiencing or expect serious financial strain
• 80% of research administrators say they will likely reduce headcount in the next 12 months

Yet, most senior research leaders are not backing down. They are increasing grant submissions, and pivoting directions. Nearly 70% say they are actively pursuing alternative, non-federal funding sources such as private foundations and industry partnerships.

As one VP for Research put it: “This is a threat to the future of science in the U.S. on the global stage.”  Leaders fear that without bold action, the U.S. could lose its position as a global scientific leader for generations to come.

This report offers a rare snapshot of how institutions are responding: what they’re prioritizing, where they’re struggling, and how they’re fighting to protect the future of U.S. science.

The Rapid Decline of U.S. Research Support

Federal funding cuts are reshaping daily research across the U.S., with delayed grants, hiring freezes, and mounting uncertainty. What once felt isolated is now national and accelerating.

• 90% of respondents believe budget cuts will hinder research progress
• 67% of respondents express extreme concern about ongoing changes to federal funding
• 75% of research administrators report low faculty morale at their institutions
• 80% of respondents believe budgets will continue to decline over the next 12–18 months, by an average of 20%

This report reflects what researchers and institutions across the country are experiencing and how they’re responding. Our goal is to surface those insights. What’s changing? What strategies are working? And how can we use that knowledge to face this moment as a community, not in isolation?

You’re not alone in making hard decisions. And you don’t have to face them alone.

The Brain Drain Threatening America's Scientific Edge

Even in well-resourced labs, many early-career researchers are rethinking their future. Some are considering leaving academia altogether. Others are thinking about leaving the United States.

Our survey data shows how widespread the impact has become:

• 56% of non-PI staff scientists are considering leaving the US academia
• 87% of principal investigators are experiencing or expecting financial strain in their labs
• 70% of non-PI staff scientists are worried about job security or contract renewal
• 69% of non-PI staff scientists are not satisfied with how their institution is communicating changes

These numbers reflect more than personal frustration. They point to a research system under serious strain and a generation of scientists at risk of walking away.

When early-career researchers leave, the consequences reach far beyond their labs. We lose a generation of momentum, innovation, and discoveries.

What Labs & Institutions Are Doing to Stay Afloat

• 86% of principal investigators and research administrators are actively exploring non-federal funding, such as philanthropic foundations and pharamaceutical partnerships
• 60% of principal investigators are submitting more grants
• 13% of research leaders are considering leaving academia or relocating. Most are choosing to stay.
• 50% of non-PI staff scientists have taken on more grant writing and administrative responsibilities to help close the funding gap

To stay afloat, many labs are ramping up grant submissions—some working 12 to 16 hour days just to keep up. While it helps in the short term, few see this as sustainable.

At the same time, labs are shifting their focus to match available funding. Some are leaning into more translational work, while others are reshaping early-stage research to attract pharmaceutical support.

Amid all this, one message stood out: research leaders are staying not because it’s easy, but because walking away would mean leaving the next generation behind. Faculty repeatedly pointed to their graduate students and postdocs as their reason for pressing on.