by Fiona Bork - 04/19/26 6:00 AM ET

The Hill's Headlines — April 18, 2026

The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) future is in limbo as President Trump pushes for more budget cuts and his nominee to helm the research agency awaits Senate confirmation.

Since Trump’s return to the White House, the administration has canceled or suspended nearly 1,400 of the agency’s grants, citing changing policy priorities. A series of internal changes, including layoffs and a shifting funding focus, have also contributed to a reduction in the number of new grants issued by the NSF, which funds a quarter of basic scientific research across the country.

Former NSF directors and organizations representing grant recipients warn that the dismantling of the agency, which serves as a counterpart to the National Institutes of Health, will ultimately curtail American scientific innovation.

“I worry about losing that next generation of researchers just because everything’s so uncertain and there’s just a lot of frustration,” Sarah Spreitzer, the assistant vice president and chief of staff of government relations?? at the American Council on Education, told The Hill.

The NSF’s focus on contributing to “early-stage” or “basic” science, has led to major technological breakthroughs, including the MRI machine, the GPS and artificial intelligence. It’s also funded projects that have advanced the internet, the cellphone, mRNA vaccines and companies like Google.

“One never knows if an investment today whose outcome is unknown will lead to a tool everyone can benefit from … or an industry of the future,” said France Córdova, who served as NSF director under both former President Obama and Trump. “That’s why it is so important to invest in basic research.”

Trump’s 2027 budget request, released last week, seeks to cut NSF funding by more than 50 percent. The Office of Management and Budget did not return a request for comment on why the administration wants to reduce funding at the agency, but a spokesperson from the NSF said it “reflects a strategic alignment of resources in a constrained fiscal environment.”

Previous grant cancellations at the NSF largely revolve around diversity, equity and inclusion, and misinformation or disinformation that the administration stated “were not aligned with agency priorities.” Staffing cuts were made as part of broader cost-cutting efforts made by the federal government to limit bureaucracy.

The Trump administration did not return a request for comment on the changes to the NSF’s scope.

Although Congress eventually passed an almost full NSF budget for 2026, despite Trump also pushing to cut funding in half last year, former leaders and experts in the field are still sounding the alarm over the future of the “crown jewel” of American scientific research and innovation as grant funding stalls and staffing declines.

“The Trump administration, as far as I’m concerned, destroyed the old NSF and tried to create a new organization,” said Neal Lane, who served as NSF director from 1993 to 1998. “It’s unrecognizable.”

Last year in February, Trump’s now-disbanded Department of Government Efficiency cut the NSF’s staff by 10 percent. At a National Science Board meeting this February, NSF Chief Management Officer Micah Cheatham said the agency has approximately 1,300 people employed — a 35 percent decrease from the same time last year and a staffing level he described as “too low.”

“We have tons of friends at the NSF,” Stand Up for Science CEO Colette Delawalla told The Hill. “We’re constantly hearing about how burnt out these people are, how frustrated they are. Folks are just trying to stay in their positions so that the agency doesn’t go underwater.”

This past January, the NSF also moved from its long-time Virginia headquarters, which now hosts the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A lease for a new building has been approved, but most NSF staff continue to work remotely, with no set date for a return to the office.

The agency has also been operating without a permanent leader since April 2025. Trump-appointed former Director Sethuraman “Panch” Panchanathan resigned amid the administration’s funding and staffing cuts. Brian Stone, the NSF’s chief of staff, has since performed the duties of director in the interim.

Last month, Trump appointed former Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill to helm the research agency. His nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions for consideration, but it is still pending.

‘There’s no one to call’

Some professionals in the research and science space are reporting delays in the research process amid the agency’s upheaval.

Peter Harsha, the chief operating officer and director of government affairs for the Computing Research Association (CRA), said there is less personnel to review grant proposals and run the peer review panels necessary to approve federal dollars for research projects.

“There is theoretically funding in law for a lot of these programs, but getting that funding actually out the door is currently being bottlenecked because of the fact that these agencies are so down on personnel,” Harsha said.

Despite a nearly full budget, Harsha said that the NSF is significantly behind on spending its allotted fiscal year budget, which could impact the amount of researchers receiving grants.

The NSF has only committed $500 million of the $8 billion it was appropriated for the fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1. The NSF will lose the billions of remaining funding if it does not spend it by Sept. 30.

“They’re definitely playing, big time catch up, and they’re doing it with a very reduced team, so it’s not surprising that they’re that far behind,” Harsha said. “But that doesn’t help the country, right?”

The NSF has only doled out 758 grants compared with 2,327 grants the same time last year, according to Grant Witness. In a normal year, the NSF has managed to distribute an average of about 11,500 grants per fiscal year. Last year, the NSF awarded a total of 9,221 grants.

Cheatham, NSF’s chief management officer, told the National Science Board at a February meeting that it would consolidate “solicitations” for grants in an effort to ease workload on the staff amid personnel shortages. But Harsha said offering fewer and broader solicitations would limit the opportunities a researcher would have to propose work, lowering their chances of receiving funding.

An NSF spokesperson confirmed the agency is “streamlining” the merit review process in an effort to “shorten time-to-award, reduce duplicative requirements, and allow researchers to spend more time on discovery and less on compliance and paperwork.”

They added that in the coming weeks they will post “competitive recruitment opportunities” for positions that align with the agency’s needs.

“With full-year funding now in place, NSF expects award activity to proceed while continuing to support critical research through its rigorous, merit-based review process,” the spokesperson wrote.

Harsha added that the CRA is concerned the agency will or has already begun front-loading its grant funding to catch up on spending, doling out the full amount of a grant instead of distributing it over the course of a number of years.

“It’s another way of limiting the number of new awards the agency has to make,” Harsha said.

‘It’s really losing independence’

Amid these changes, former directors and national leaders in science expressed concern about the trajectory of the agency and its independence as the administration shifts its funding priorities.

Joanne Padrón Carney, the chief government relations officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who described the NSF as the “crown jewel” of the U.S. scientific landscape, said she is most concerned that the administration’s move could limit scientific advancements in other scientific fields.

Lane said he expects the NSF to prioritize funding for artificial intelligence and quantum technology research — two of the president’s policy priorities — while shifting away from “most” other “fields of science.”

An NSF spokesperson confirmed that the agency will begin prioritizing investments in AI and quantum technology, describing the research fields as “foundational to American competitiveness, national security, and economic growth.”

“The point I really want to emphasize is it’s really losing independence,” Lane added. “It’s not being treated as an independent agency. It’s just being treated by some kind of new entity to fund things the president wants to see funded.”

Spreitzer, meanwhile, pointed to an August executive order that would allow a presidentially appointed individual to have the final say on grant solicitations and approvals.

She argued that any political oversight “goes against the peer review process” in which grant applications are based on merit and reviewed by people in the science industry, and could further slow down the allocation of grants.

“There are efforts from the administration to kind of make real, substantial changes to these research agencies, outside of how Congress has authorized them,” Spreitzer said. “And I do, I worry about that.”

The lack of permanent leadership at the NSF also raises questions for experts and former directors, who argue the agency needs a strong leader with a scientific background that understands the stakes of funding research at this time.

O’Neill, whom Trump appointed to helm the agency, doesn’t meet that threshold, many argued. He faced the same criticism during his brief time in charge of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Before he became deputy Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary in June 2025, O’Neill spent several years investing in biotechnology in Silicon Valley while working for a hedge fund and venture capital firm led by billionaire and Trump donor Peter Thiel. O’Neill is also a strong ally of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and reportedly turned down an offer to be a potential ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to take the job at the NSF.

Though members of the scientific community, including former federal employees, say his past experience serving at the HHS and CDC could benefit the NSF, critics maintain that he’s particularly unqualified amid the chaotic scientific landscape.

“I think it’s just not fair to the National Science Foundation, to American scientists and everybody who benefits from science, and it’s really not fair to him, because just doesn’t have the right background,” Lane said, noting that he sees O’Neill as a “figurehead” of sorts.

John Holdren, an Obama-era science adviser, agreed that O’Neill’s lack of a scientific background will hinder his ability to perform the job at the level it requires.

“Until now, NSF has never had a director who lacked a PhD in one of these fields,” Holdren said in an email. “The nomination of Jim O’Neill, who holds no PhD at all but does have experience as a biotechnology investor, fits the Trump pattern of making appointments based more on ideological allegiance and personal loyalty than on fit with the requirements of the position.”

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who has served on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and whose district hosts the NSF, acknowledged O’Neill’s “business acumen” but said “that’s not what the National Science Foundation was called for.

“I want him to be successful, but I’m doubtful,” Beyer said.

“He will have a very steep learning curve,” Carney added. “This is an agency that may be completely new to him. So it’s important that he kind of really engage with the program officers and to learn about the goals and missions of these programs and directors in order to make the appropriate decisions.”

Meanwhile, Delawalla, of Stand Up for Science, criticized O’Neill’s background in the private sector, expressing concern that the nominee would lead the research agency like it’s a business.

“There’s a reason why this type of science is publicly funded, and it is because it’s not a thing that turns a profit in five years, and so you cannot approach it that way,” Delawalla said. “You’ll destroy the system.”

But some former NSF directors had a more optimistic tone about O’Neill’s leadership.

“O’Neill has the advantage of familiarity with the current administration, and hopefully he can help win more support for NSF’s critical mission,” said Córdova, who served as director from 2014 to 2020.

“I hope he will learn fast as we need to increase NSF funding to continue to be globally competitive in science and technology,” she added.

Still, one thread that rings true among former directors and experts who spoke to The Hill is an overarching concern about the future of U.S. scientific research.

Spreitzer claimed the NSF’s funding uncertainty has forced labs to reduce staff, which has a downstream effect on Ph.D. and postdoctoral candidates, who may not seek to pursue research careers amid the uncertainty.

She also warned that fewer researchers are applying for grants in the first place.

“Going into this administration, I never thought that there would be the level of chaos or uncertainty that we see now,” Spreitzer said. “And even though it’s been a year and a half, we are still suffering from some of the things that happened in January of 2025.”