As a young doctoral researcher at a university in the southern U.S., Camilo felt like he was finally closing in on his dream of becoming a leader in the next generation of HIV scholars. His recent work has helped hundreds of LGBTQ+ Latino people access HIV prevention programs and preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medication that reduces HIV infection risk. But these lifesaving efforts—and Camilo’s hopes of a career focused on directly helping people in his community—came to a screeching halt one recent Friday afternoon: he opened an e-mail that said a National Institutes of Health grant, vital to his work, had been terminated.

“I saw an image of a floating pair of scissors clipping my future,” says Camilo, who asked to use a pseudonym, citing fear of retaliation.

Since researchers first began receiving grant termination letters in late February, massive chunks of federal funding for science and health have been canceled on a near-weekly basis. The Trump administration has framed these cuts as a way to reduce wasteful spending, refocus research priorities and eliminate ideological bias. Grants have been flagged for containing keywords such as “women,” “diverse,” “minority” and “racially.” Camilo’s research checked all the boxes for the administration’s crackdown on so-called diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) research. He had been expecting the bad news, but when it came, it was still crushing. “You’re losing everything,” he says.

On supporting science journalism

If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Grant Watch, a project tracking Trump’s scientific funding cancellations, has tallied more than 2,482 terminated NIH grants worth $8.7 billion and 1,669 terminated National Science Foundation grants worth $1.5 billion as of mid-June. An NSF spokesperson declined an interview request from Scientific American but wrote in an e-mail that “we remain committed to awarding grants and funding all areas of science and engineering.” The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to direct requests for an interview for this article. An NIH representative did not respond to a list of written questions but said the agency “is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities.”

“I saw an image of a floating pair of scissors clipping my future.” —Camilo, doctoral researcher

On June 16 Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled against cuts to hundreds of grants for projects through the NIH, calling these cuts “void and illegal” and indicating that funding must be reinstated. Experts expect the Trump administration will appeal the ruling, which does not apply to all of the terminated grants compiled by Grant Watch.

Virtually every research sector has been disrupted in some way since Trump took office and issued a slew of executive orders affecting science and health care. Tens of thousands of federal employees at the HHS, NIH and other science- and health-related agencies have been laid off. Universities are bracing for major federal funding cuts by freezing new hiring and cutting graduate student positions. Private research companies and industries have also seen some federal support severed—including support for the development of new vaccines and cancer treatments.

“When you cut fellowships and grants, you’re cutting the people that are doing the work.”
—Andrew Pekosz, virologist, Johns Hopkins University

Of the many thousands of researchers grappling with the fallout, one group is being disproportionately affected: early-career scientists. Senior researchers often have a diversity of funding streams, but for those starting out in the field, “grants serve as the foundation for an entire career of work,” says Megan Ranney, dean of the Yale School of Public Health. With the cuts, “there are some [early-career researchers] who we will undoubtedly lose from the scientific and health enterprises.”

Scientific American posted on a Reddit space for scientists, researchers and lab workers to ask people how they are grappling with the professional and personal whiplash of these interruptions. More than 50 people responded with public comments; dozens more sent private messages expressing fears, frustrations and concerns. We interviewed several of them—and other junior researchers—about how the cuts are affecting their current and future work and what the long-term consequences may be for the U.S.

Research Interrupted

Students and postdoctoral researchers perform the vast majority of research at academic institutions, so in addition to disrupting individual lives, the cuts have thrown whole laboratories into disarray. “When you cut fellowships and grants, you’re cutting the people that are doing the work,” says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist who leads a lab at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Pekosz’s lab had recently lost a COVID-related grant that was supposed to run until September. which forced him to dismiss a postdoc and a research associate because he lacked funding for their salaries. He was able to cobble together support for a Ph.D. student on the project but had to shorten the timeline for the research. Although the lab’s grant is among those that Judge Young ordered the NIH to restore, much damage has already been done.

“There’s just an overwhelming sense of insecurity.” —Sierra Wilson, Ph.D. student, University of Pittsburgh

Labs that still have funding are also working under high pressure and low morale. “We’re constantly asking our PI [principal investigator], ‘Is everything going to be okay? Are we going to be safe?’” says R.K., an undergraduate student at a lab in the Midwest that’s investigating treatments for a genetic disease. (R.K. asked to be identified by his initials, citing fear that speaking out could harm his future career.) At weekly meetings, he says, the lab’s principal investigator has been pushing the team to publish more papers “in order to show our progress to donor organizations.” If the researchers’ NIH funding shrinks, he says, “we would need to persuade our other donors for more money to make up the gap.”

Applied across thousands of U.S. labs, these losses—both tangible and psychological—will add up, Pekosz says. “We’re going to see a massive downsizing of biomedical research efforts because there simply is not going to be the funding available to maintain the current level,” he says.

Recent data suggest this is likely to prove correct. For example, according to a 2023 JAMA Health Forum paper, of the 356 drugs that gained Food and Drug Administration approval between 2010 and 2019, more than 84 percent received research funding from the NIH before approval. This research was powered by early-career workers: billions of dollars in NIH funding supported graduate students, postdocs and research staff who conducted the work. Under the current budget cuts, however, “all of this is at risk,” says Fred Ledley, a co-author of the 2023 paper and a professor of natural and applied sciences at Bentley University.

Deeply Personal

The termination letter for Calimo’s grant, which is not affected by Judge Young’s ruling, said that it “no longer [effectuated] agency priorities” and that “research programs based primarily on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life or reduce illness.” Not only did these claims completely contradict the original score that NIH grant reviewers gave Camilo’s application, reading the letter made him feel like he was being “attacked,” he says.

Early-career grants are both crucial stepping stones to larger grants and recognition of a rising researcher’s potential. The way the Trump administration’s termination letters are worded “delegitimates the scientists and the work they do,” Ranney says. “There’s often a deeply personal aspect.”

“I just feel very let down and betrayed by my country.” —Alex, postdoc, University of Colorado

Sometimes, that personal aspect is literally about the researchers themselves. Sierra Wilson, a Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, assumed her liver-regeneration research would be safe from the cuts. But because Wilson is a first-generation college student from a low-income household, her funding came from a program that aimed to increase diversity in biomedical research, and according to the NIH spokesperson, that program is now “expired.”

When Wilson read her termination letter in late April, she suspected it must be related not to her research but to her classification as an underrepresented scholar. In her case, she says, the federal cuts appear to be targeting “people themselves—which feels more discriminatory.” The NIH spokesperson did not respond to Scientific American’s question about the allegation that the termination of grants in the now expired program appeared to be based on researchers’ identity or background. According to the spokesperson, “Grantees may appeal terminations for nonalignment with agency priorities.” Wilson sent an appeal request in May, but she does not expect a timely resolution, and to her knowledge, her grant is not affected by Judge Young’s decision. University personnel who helped her with the appeals process told her that they expect she will have graduated by the time the NIH gets back to her.

A number of junior researchers say all these blows are taking a heavy toll on their mental health. One of them is Alex, a postdoc at the University of Colorado, whose last name has been withheld for privacy at her request. Alex, who says she comes from a low socioeconomic background and served in the military before pursuing research developing flu vaccines, reports recurring nightmares about losing her postdoctoral job. She “spirals” each time she sees bad news about science at stake, she says, and has recently developed blood pressure issues. “I just feel very let down and betrayed by my country,” she says. “I feel ashamed I even served it.”

The Lost Generation of Scientists

Scientists who are just entering their field can spark fresh ideas and bring an appetite for change. But dwindling funding and opportunities threaten to “choke off” this influx of new talent—further constraining the already competitive job market—Pekosz says. He has even seen signs of the scientist-hiring drought spilling over into industry. His graduating Ph.D. students are struggling to secure jobs, he says, adding that his inbox is full of e-mails from prospective students as well as laid-off federal scientists seeking positions in his lab.

Wilson has fading hopes for securing a job in academia when she graduates this fall. “With all these grant and job terminations, the market is flooded, and people aren’t hiring because [they don’t know] how things will work out,” Wilson says. “There’s just an overwhelming sense of insecurity.”

Many scientists, including early-career ones, are contemplating leaving the U.S. to find better support for their research. R.K., who plans to pursue a dual medical degree and Ph.D., is now considering applying to programs in Asia and Europe. Alex, likewise, is strongly thinking about leaving the country. “I would love to be a PI,” she says. “But there’s no hope left here.”

If available scientific talent continues to decline in the U.S., experts anticipate a potential domino effect on the economy. In 2024 every dollar invested in NIH research generated a $2.56 return, so the U.S. economy will likely feel the aftershocks of the recent cuts relatively quickly, Ranney says. In the longer term, scientific discoveries “will start to stagnate,” she says.

“We need to recognize that we have a tremendous amount of power.” —Tyler Yasaka, medical and Ph.D. student, University of Pittsburgh

There’s also a likelihood that science fields will become a less appealing choice for incoming college students. “I worry that we’re going to see a loss of basic scientific skill and knowledge as fewer people go into science,” Ranney says. If the pipeline of new talent slows, the nation’s position as a global leader in science will be difficult to maintain—or to recover once it’s gone, she says.

It’s going to be impossible to replace all the lost federal funding, Ranney says. The remaining hope, then, is that “we can reverse course,” she says.

Some scientists are uniting and pushing back. Tyler Yasaka, a dual medical and Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, is part of an informal committee at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center that’s brainstorming actions researchers and students can take, such as advocating for science in front of elected officials at Capitol Hill. He is also independently launching a podcast to share scientists’ experiences with funding. “I think most scientists aren’t comfortable speaking out publicly, but if we value democracy, we have an obligation to use our voices,” Yasaka says. “We need to recognize that we have a tremendous amount of power.”

Fortunately for Camilo, his university has found institutional funds to support the remainder of his Ph.D. But he no longer sees a clear path forward after graduation to continue his research on HIV and LGBTQ+ health among Latinos in the U.S.—public health issues that are personally important to him. “It’s sad and upsetting,” he says. “I do not want to give up on my community.”

Additional reporting by Lauren J. Young.