By Dale Chaucer 
The US science and technology sector is navigating a period of considerable change and uncertainty as federal budget proposals suggest steep reductions in funding for key research programs, while international partnerships and strategic priorities are simultaneously evolving.
The Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal outlines a 47% reduction in NASA’s science programs compared to 2024 levels, including a dramatic 71% cut to biological and physical sciences research. The National Science Foundation (NSF) also faces significant funding challenges, with a projected drop in competitive grant awards from approximately 9,600 to 2,300 and an acceptance rate plummeting from 26% to 7%. Despite these cuts, the budget prioritizes investments in major facility construction, particularly a $201 million allocation for the Leadership-Class Computing Facility at the University of Texas at Austin. Notably, research areas in artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum information science are shielded from major reductions, reflecting their strategic importance.
These budgetary constraints have raised concerns about the future of US scientific research and innovation. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has warned that the turmoil could lead to delays in grant processing and disruptions in research continuity, a phenomenon described as “impoundment by default” due to administrative bottlenecks.
Concurrently, the US Department of State is undergoing a reorganization that threatens to eliminate the Office of Science and Technology Cooperation (OSTC), which is responsible for negotiating international science and technology agreements. This move could jeopardize US access to global research collaborations and facilities, potentially isolating American scientists from critical international partnerships.
On the international front, NATO Defence Ministers endorsed a new Science and Technology Strategy on June 5, 2025, positioning science and technology as central pillars for maintaining the Alliance’s military and technological edge. The strategy highlights enhanced investment in critical areas such as AI, quantum technologies, and biotechnology, alongside efforts to safeguard research security and promote agile coordination across NATO’s core tasks. This strategy supersedes the 2018 version and incorporates long-term scientific trends identified for the next two decades.
The emphasis on AI and quantum computing is echoed in broader scientific discourse. A 2023 OECD report underscores AI’s transformative potential in accelerating scientific discovery, improving research productivity, and enabling new applications across disciplines. The report also calls for policies that maximize AI’s societal benefits while addressing governance challenges, including data privacy and research reproducibility.
Despite these strategic initiatives, the US science community faces challenges from federal budget cuts and institutional restructuring. The reduction in funding threatens to slow progress in biomedical research and other fundamental areas, while the potential loss of the OSTC could diminish the US role in global science diplomacy.
Experts emphasize that while the administration’s budget proposals signal policy priorities, actual spending decisions will depend on Congressional action, which requires bipartisan support. The coming months will be critical in determining how these proposals translate into enacted budgets and how the US science and technology enterprise adapts to these evolving conditions.
In summary, the US science and technology field is at a crossroads, balancing strategic investments in emerging technologies and international collaboration with significant fiscal and organizational challenges. The outcomes of these developments will shape the trajectory of American innovation and its global scientific leadership in the years ahead.
Andreas Lundberg