This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of theClimate Desk collaboration.
A generation of scientific talent is at the brink of being lost to overseas competitors by the Trump administration’s dismantling of the National Science Foundation (NSF), with unprecedented political interference at the agency jeopardizing the future of US industries and economic growth, according to a Guardian investigation.
The gold standard peer-reviewed process used by the NSF to support cutting-edge, high-impact science is being undermined by the chaotic cuts to staff, programs and grants, as well as meddling by the so-called department of government efficiency (DOGE), according to multiple current and former NSF employees who spoke with the Guardian.
The scientists warn that Trump’s assault on diversity in science is already eroding the quality of fundamental research funded at the NSF, the premier federal investor in basic science and engineering, which threatens to derail advances in tackling existential threats to food, water and biodiversity in the US.
“The NSF’s gold standard review process has 100 percent been compromised.”
“Before Trump, the review process was based on merit and impact. Now, it’s like rolling the dice because a DOGE person has the final say,” said one current program officer. “There has never in the history of NSF been anything like this. It’s disgusting what we’re being instructed to do.”
Another program officer said: “The exact details of the extra step is opaque but I can say with high confidence that people from DOGE or its proxies are scrutinizing applications with absolutely devastating consequences. The move amounts to the US willingly conceding global supremacy to competitors like China in biological, social and physical sciences. It is a mind-boggling own-goal.”
The NSF, founded in 1950, is the only federal agency that funds fundamental research across all fields of science and engineering, and which over the years has contributed to major breakthroughs in organ transplants, gene technology, AI, smartphones and the internet, extreme weather and other hazard warning systems, American sign language, cybersecurity and even the language app Duolingo.
In normal times, much of the NSF budget ($9 billion in 2024/25) is allocated to research institutions after projects undergo a rigorous three-step review process—beginning with the program officer, an expert in the field, who ensures the proposed study fits in with the agency’s priorities. The program officer convenes an expert panel to evaluate the proposal on two statutory criteria—intellectual merit and broader impacts on the nation and people—which under the NSF’s legal mandate includes broadening participation of individuals, institutions, and geographic regions in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).
Applications from across the country that are greenlighted by the program officer are almost always funded, though may be subject to tweaks after revision by the division director before the grants directorate allocates the budget.
That was before Trump. Now, DOGE personnel can veto any study without explanation, the Guardian has confirmed.
“We are under pressure to only fund proposals that fit the new narrow priorities, even if they did not review as well as others,” said one current program officer. “The NSF’s gold standard review process has 100 percent been compromised.”
Research aimed at addressing the unequal impact of the climate crisis and other environmental hazards is particularly vulnerable, according to several sources. New proposals are also being screened for any direct reference or indirect connection to diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI).
“NSF is being asked to make science racist again—which contradicts evidence that shows that diversity of ideas is good for science and good for innovation. We are missing things when only white males do science,” said one program officer.
In addition to DOGE interfering in new proposals, at least 1,653 active NSF research grants authorized on their merits have so far been abruptly cancelled—abandoned midway through the project, according to Grant Watch, a nonprofit tracker of federal science and health research grants canceled under Trump.
“It has been soul-sucking to see projects that went through the review process being changed or terminated over and over again.”
Multiple NSF scientists who oversee a diverse range of NSF programs described the grant cancellations as “unprecedented,” “arbitrary,” and a “colossal waste of taxpayer money.”
Almost 60 percent of the projects abandoned are in states which voted for Joe Biden in 2024, Guardian analysis found. More than one in nine cancelled grants—12 percent of the total—were at Harvard University, which Trump has particularly targeted since coming to power in January.
In addition, studies deemed to be violating Trump’s executive orders on DEI and environmental justice—regardless of their scientific merit, potential impact or urgency—are being abruptly terminated at particularly high rates.
It’s not uncommon for the NSF and other federal research agencies to shift focus to reflect a new administration’s priorities. Amid mounting evidence on the crucial role of diversity in innovation and science, Biden priorities included increased effort to tackle inequalities across the STEM workforce—and a commitment to target underserved communities most affected by the climate crisis and environmental harms.
Trump’s priorities are AI, quantum information science, nuclear, biotech, and translational research. “It’s normal that a new administration will emphasize some areas, de-emphasize others, and we would gradually transition to new priorities. During the George W. Bush administration there were shenanigans around climate change, but it was nothing like this kind of meddling in the scientific review process. You never just throw proposals in the garbage can,” said one current NSF staffer.
“Our mandate is to advance science and innovation. And we just can’t do that if we’re not thinking about diversifying the STEM workforce. We don’t have enough people or diversity of thought without broadening participation—which is part of the NSF mission mandate,” said a former program officer from the Directorate for Computer and Information Science who recently accepted a buyout.
“It has been soul-sucking to see projects that went through the review process being changed or terminated over and over again,” they added.
The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150 percent to 300 percent over the past 75 years, meaning US taxpayers have gotten back between $1.50 and $3 for every dollar invested.
Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” includes a 56 percent cut to the current $9 billion NSF budget, as well as a 73 percent reduction in staff and fellowships, with graduate students among the hardest hit.
Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that it will be moving into the NSF headquarters in Virginia over the course of the next two years. The shock announcement—which did not include any plans on relocating more than 1,800 NSF employees—has triggered speculation that the administration eventually plans to defund the agency entirely.
For now, program officers are also being instructed to return research proposals to scientists and institutions “without review”—regardless of merit and despite having been submitted in response to specific NSF solicitations to address gaps in scientific and engineering knowledge around some of the most pressing concerns in the US. This includes projects that have in fact undergone review, and others which can no longer be processed due to staff and program cuts, according to multiple NSF sources.
In one case, a 256-page proposal by scientists at four public universities to use ancient DNA records to better forecast biodiversity loss as the planet warms was apparently archived without consideration.
“That’s a whole generation of young scientists who see no pathway into the field.”
In an email seen by the Guardian, the NSF told Jacquelyn Gill, a paleoecologist and principal investigator (lead scientist) based at the University of Maine, that all proposals submitted to the Biology Integration Institute program were returned without review. A second email said their specific proposal had been “administratively screened” and the area of proposed study was “inappropriate for NSF funding.”
An estimated 40 percent of animals and 34 percent of plants across the US are currently at risk. The proposed study would have used an emerging technology to extract ancient DNA from lake sediments, ice cores, and cave deposits to better understand which species fared better or worse when the planet naturally warmed thousands of years ago—in order to help model and protect biodiversity in the face of human-made climate change.
Gill told the Guardian the team took great care to avoid any reference to DEI or climate change. The grant would have created much-needed research capacity in the US, which is lagging behind Europe in this field.
“Ancient DNA records allow you to reconstruct entire ecosystems at a very high level. This is a very new and emerging science, and grants like this help catalyze the research and reinvest in US infrastructure and workforce in ways that have huge returns on investments for their local economies. It’s an absolute slap in the face that the proposal was returned without review,” Gill said.
In another example, two academic institutions chosen to receive prestigious $15m grants for translational research—a Trump priority—after a 30-month cross-agency review process led by the engineering directorate and involving hundreds of people will not be honored.
The proposals selected for the award through merit review will be returned without review for being “inappropriate for NSF funding,” the Guardian understands.
“This is complex, very high-impact translation science to achieve sustainability across cities and regions and industries…we’re being instructed to put the principal investigators off, but nothing’s going to get funded because there’s DEI in this program,” said an NSF employee with knowledge of the situation.
Meanwhile scores of other proposals approved on merit by program officers are disappearing into a “black box”—languishing for weeks or months without a decision or explanation, which was leading some to “self-censor,” according to NSF staff.
“It’s either NSF staff self-censoring to make sure they don’t get into trouble, or it is censorship by somebody inserted in the scientific review process from DOGE. Either way it’s a political step, and therefore problematic,” said Anne Marie Schmoltner, a program officer in the chemistry division who retired in February after 30 years in the agency.
In addition to distributing funds to seasoned researchers, the NSF supports students and up-and-coming scientists and engineers through fellowships, research opportunities and grants.
This next generation of talent is being hit particularly hard under Trump, who is attempting to impose sweeping restrictions on visas and travel bans on scores of countries. The proposed 2026 budget includes funding for only 21,400 under- and postgraduate students nationwide—a 75 percent reduction from this year.
Like many scientists across the country, Gill, the paleoecologist, is not accepting new graduate students this fall due to funding uncertainty. “That’s a whole generation of young scientists who see no pathway into the field for them. I cannot stress enough how deeply upsetting and demoralizing these cuts are to a community of people who only ever wanted to solve problems and be of use.”
Yet the NSF student pipeline provides experts for the oil and gas, mining, chemical, big tech and other industries which support Trump, in addition to academic and government-funded agencies.
If we can’t manage our natural resources in a sustainable way, “we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.”
“Industry is working on optimizing what they’re doing right now, whereas NSF is looking 10, 20 years down the road. The US wants a global, robust economy and for that you need innovation, and for innovation you need the fundamental research funded by the NSF,” said Schmoltner.
The NSF declined to comment, referring instead to theagency website last updated in April which states: ‘The principles of merit, competition, equal opportunity and excellence are the bedrock of the NSF mission. NSF continues to review all projects using Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria.’
The sweeping cuts to the NSF come on top of Trump’s dismantling of other key scientific research departments within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA) and US Geological Service (USGS).
The USGS is the research arm of the Department of Interior. Its scientists help solve real-life problems about hazards, natural resources, water, energy, ecosystems, and the impacts of climate and land-use change for tribal governments, the Bureau of Land Management, fish and wildlife services, and the National Parks Service, among other interior agencies.
Trump’s big, beautiful bill cuts the USGS budget by 39 percent. This includes slashing the entire budget for the agency’s ecosystems mission area (EMA), which leads federal research on species & ecosystems and houses the climate adaptation science centers.
EMA scientists figure out how to better protect at-risk species such as bees and wolverines, minimize harmful overgrazing on BLM lands, and prevent invasive carp from reaching the Great Lakes—all vitally important to protect food security in the US as the climate changes.
The EMA has already lost 25 to 30 percent of employees through DOGE-approved layoffs and buyouts, and is now facing termination. “We’ve already lost a lot of institutional memory and new, up-and-coming leaders. [Under Trump’s budget], all science in support of managing our public lands and natural resources [will] be cut,” said one USGS program officer.
“Our economy is driven by natural resources including timber, minerals, and food systems, and if we don’t manage these in a sustainable way, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.”
Like at the NSF, the USGC’s gold standard peer-review system for research approval and oversight is now at the mercy of DOGE—in this case Tyler Hasson, the former oil executive given sweeping authority by the Interior secretary. According to USGS staff, Hasson’s office accepts or rejects proposals based on two paragraphs of information program officers are permitted to submit, without any dialogue or feedback. “The gold standard scientific review is being interfered with. This is now a political process,” said one USGS scientist.
A spokesperson for the Interior department said: “The claim that science is being ‘politicized’ is categorically false. We reject the narrative that responsible budget reform constitutes an ‘assault on science’. On the contrary, we are empowering American innovation by cutting red tape, reducing bureaucracy and ensuring that the next generation of scientists and engineers can focus on real-world solutions—not endless paperwork or politically motivated research agendas.”
The USGS, office of management and budget and White House did not respond to requests from comment.