The White House’s 2027 budget proposal calls for significant funding reductions to multiple federal agencies, including several that provide federal funding to Penn.
The plan, released on April 3, proposes a cut of more than 50% in federal spending for the National Science Foundation and a 13% cut to the National Institutes of Health. Ahead of the proposal being submitted for congressional approval, The Daily Pennsylvanian spoke with University faculty and administrators to discuss how the potential cuts could affect their research.
Earth and Environmental Sciences professor Leigh Stearns described the proposed NSF cuts — which specifically impact projects related to the climate and environment — as a “gut punch.”
“I think I probably won't be submitting as many proposals,” Stearns said in an interview with the DP. “It does shift how you think about your research, because I'm probably going to have to look at other funding agencies to fund some of the work that I would like to do through NSF.”
In January, Congress rejected a previous proposal from 1968 Wharton graduate and President Donald Trump's administration, seeking similar cuts to federal science research budgets. Although the proposal would continue to fund research areas like artificial intelligence and quantum information, Stearns said that climate research remains essential.
“Even though we are confident about the way climate is changing, there's still a lot of questions about how and when that will manifest,” Stearns said. “There's a lot of fundamental science that needs to be done to understand those systems.”
Stearns — who also serves as the graduate chair of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department — also noted that reduced federal investment could weaken the nation's competitive edge in scientific research on a global scale.
“A lot of European Union countries and China are going the opposite way — they're investing more in fundamental science and supporting climate science at a time when we are making cuts,” she said.
RELATED:
Trump administration drops appeal in case blocking educational funding cuts for DEI programs
Penn to cut school, center budgets by 4% amid federal policy ‘uncertainty’
She added that other nations have already moved to “poach” United States graduates in scientific fields, and she hopes that Congress will reject the “devastating and reckless.”
“It's just a really bad optics for scientists and the international community,” she said. “Everybody knows that climate and environmental issues are very present in geopolitics and security and economic development, so it just makes us look really bad.”
Earth and Environmental Sciences professor Jon Hawkings, who researches biogeochemical cycles, told the DP that it would be “very difficult” to conduct scientific research without NSF support.
“Lots of people in my field depend on money from the NSF and from other federal agencies,” Hawkings said. “Without it, it just wouldn't function, so progress would be dealt a huge blow.”
Hawkings also said that the funding reductions could further deter graduate students from pursuing academic programs in the U.S. and at Penn — an issue he argued was compounded by the University’s recent reductions in graduate admissions.
He argued that alternative funding sources, such as philanthropic foundations, are unlikely to replace federal investment at a large scale and would not be able to cover “even a fraction” of the NSF’s multi-billion dollar budget.
“When you get reliant on philanthropic foundations or even private donors, that skews the science, because then it's just what they want to fund, rather than what we as a scientific community think are the right things to fund,” Hawkings said.
He added that the proposed funding cuts “don’t make economic sense.”
“It's completely insane to me that they don't want to fund these kinds of things because they're such a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, and there's demonstrable economic trickle-down effects of federal funding for research,” Hawkings said.
Chemistry professor Patrick Walsh — who leads an NSF-funded undergraduate training program for students from non-research universities to participate in collaborative research projects at Penn alongside co-principal investigator Marta Guron — wrote to the DP about how the potential cuts would affect the initiative.
The program — which seeks to “train the next generation of PhD researchers in chemistry” — is structured to train 10 students each year. In a statement to the DP, Walsh wrote that if government funding for their grant was reduced in the future, he would no longer be able to accept all 10 students into the program.
“It is my hope that our elected leaders understand the value of investing in science, which has been shown to produce significant returns on investment,” Walsh wrote.
In addition to the proposed NSF cuts, funding to the NIH would be reduced by $5 billion under the Trump administration’s proposed budget.
School of Nursing Dean Antonia Villarruel wrote in a statement to the DP that the proposed NIH cuts would have a “major impact” on the development of science and scientists, as well as on the health of populations.
“Investment in the research enterprise of the U.S. is something we all need to be concerned about,” she added.
The White House budget proposes eliminating three institutes focused on minority health, integrative health, and international research.
“The areas of science that these institutes represent are important areas for science and for the advancement of health,” Villarruel explained. “Nursing research has led the development of interventions and approaches to reduce health disparities.”
Last year, the NIH implemented a funding cut — a 15% cap on indirect costs — that, if enacted, would cost Penn $240 million. A ruling blocking that order was upheld by a federal appeals court earlier this year.
In March, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya visited Penn Medicine alongside Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) to discuss the future of federal research investments. According to a press release, the tour aimed to highlight “how NIH-supported research is driving medical progress.”
Earth and Environmental Science professor Michael Mann — who formerly served as Penn’s Vice Provost for Climate — wrote in a statement to the DP that the proposed cuts fit into a “larger pattern” of the Trump administration’s “politically-motivated antiscience agenda.”
“The cuts of the NSF in particular will impact scientific progress in the U.S. across the board,” Mann wrote. “Given that this country was built on the scientific discoveries of our great universities, like Penn, one might go so far as to say that this assault on American science is downright Un-American.”
RELATED:
Trump administration drops appeal in case blocking educational funding cuts for DEI programs
Penn to cut school, center budgets by 4% amid federal policy ‘uncertainty’
Senior reporter Norah Findley leads coverage of science and health and can be reached at findley@thedp.com. At Penn, she studies environmental studies. Follow her on X @NorahFindley_.
