ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Sociol.
Sec. Work, Employment and Organizations
Early Career Researcher Responses to 2025 United States Federal Science Funding Disruptions: A Rapid-Response Pilot Survey
- CH
Crystal Hammond 1,2,3
- JP
John Patrick Flores 4,2,5,3
- SR
Siara Rouzer 6,2,3
- KF
Kassandra Fernandez 2,7,8
- AR
Amy Ralston 9,2,3
- AB
Adriana Bankston 10,2,3
1. University of California Riverside, Riverside, United States
2. SRC Bankston Group, Washington, DC, United States
3. STEM Advocacy Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
4. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
5. Science for Good, Washington, DC, United States
6. Texas A&M University Naresh K Vashisht College of Medicine, Bryan, United States
7. University of Florida, Department of Engineering Education, Gainesville, Florida, United States
8. The STEM Advocacy Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
9. University of California Irvine, Irvine, United States
10. United States House of Representatives, Washington D.C., United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract
Scientific research drives national progress and innovation, but abrupt federal funding disruptions can destabilize research training at critical career stages and push talented researchers out of the workforce. Actions by the Trump administration in early 2025 sent shockwaves across academic research in the United States (U.S.). Federal science budgets were significantly reduced, hundreds of research grants were abruptly frozen or terminated, and politically appointed agency leaders overrode peer-reviewed funding decisions. We conducted pilot, rapid-response surveys to capture quotes, stories, and quantitative data in order to understand how these seismic policy shifts were being experienced by early career researchers at American universities. Our results showed that the majority of respondents were PhD students and early career researchers at varying stages of training, across a range of institutions and disciplines, including different types of sciences, with the largest percentage of respondents from the life sciences. Respondents described threats to the continuity of their research and careers due to funding cuts at major federal science agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), and reported concerns about long-term job prospects and broader systemic problems in academia. Many respondents also indicated that these disruptions were leading them to consider leaving research altogether or pursuing scientific careers outside the U.S. Reported concerns spanned the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels. While universities provided some resources of support, respondents emphasized the need for Congress to protect, stabilize, and restore science funding. Robust and sustained funding support for early career researchers is imperative for developing a strong science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce and maintaining American leadership in research and innovation. Overall, this pilot study provides early evidence that reductions in federal science funding may disrupt training pathways, erode confidence in research careers, and contribute to lasting losses from the future research workforce in the United States.
Summary
Keywords
academic research, Early career researcher (ECR), Federal policy making, Science funding cuts, STEM workforce development, Trump administration
Received
19 January 2026
Accepted
22 May 2026
Copyright
© 2026 Hammond, Flores, Rouzer, Fernandez, Ralston and Bankston. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Adriana Bankston
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.