Sophia Gagliardi, a graduate student at American University, heard that the National Institutes of Health would make cuts to research grants when the news first broke in early 2025. 

Gagliardi, a biology major and a public health minor, said the news was a lot to take in. She worried about the labs at the agency and the lab she works in on campus, which government grants fund. A lot of labs working on important projects closed down, Gagliardi said. 

“I was like, this is so cool, this is so important, and now it’s completely non-existent,” Gagliardi said.

The shutdown was one in a series of shakeups AU’s researchers have seen happen in their field over the past year and a half. On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to eliminate programs and grants relating to diversity, equity and inclusion. In July, the National Science Foundation, a federal agency that supports and funds scientific research, released a list of over 1600 terminated grants and is still evaluating what new awards will be granted. AU researchers lost funding worth over $3 million, that list shows. Then, in May, the Office of Management and Budget released a proposed regulation that could soon tighten the requirements for programs seeking funding from the federal government.

As changes to the research landscape have unfolded, student researchers at AU have felt uncertain about whether their research can continue given the loss of many grants for scientific programs, researchers and mentors said. Some said students are considering changing career paths or pursuing graduate degrees to delay finding a full-time position. Meanwhile, the cuts have only motivated others to work harder.

Scientists and researchers at AU are concerned that cuts and funding freezes will leave a permanent gap in employment and research, potentially placing the United States behind in research and development for years, even if the cuts are reversed.

“Can we get that grant again?”

The uncertainty surrounding research grants has led some young researchers to change careers or seek work in other countries, researchers told AWOL in interviews since October. Others, even those whose funding remains, said they remain unsure about what the future will bring.

Sauleh Siddiqui, a professor of environmental science and a researcher, said four of the graduate students and postdoctoral fellows he mentored in 2025 abandoned plans to pursue academia. One of them was on track to become a top researcher at a national lab, he said, but their employer fired them because of federal funding cuts. They took a new job researching abroad. (That fellow declined to speak with AWOL.)

Siddiqui was conducting research on sustainable food systems when the National Science Foundation paused his grant. A tenured professor at AU, Siddiqui said he is most worried about the graduate students and junior researchers he employed who are now without income.

“There are a lot of other people depending on me and depending on these research dollars to come in to sustain their careers,” Siddiqui said.

Colin Saldanha, a professor of neuroscience, said he worried the federal government would target his work for cuts, leaving him unable to pay his student employees. But NSF granted his project over $1 million up front, a rare grant structure usually reserved only for experienced and trusted researchers, Saldanha said.

“I must be the luckiest person in the world,” Saldanha said.

Still, Saldanha said he worries about the future of his work and the field as a whole.

“I’m scared,” Saldanha said. “You know, this career, you can’t lose time, you can’t stop experiments.”

Valentina Aquila, a climate researcher and chair of AU’s Department of Environmental Science, said her grant to study urban air pollution has been pending since April 2025. Aquila said she may turn to private funding to support her work in the future. But that strategy could delay her work, she said.

“There are many different ways of getting funding,” Aquila said. “And for these communities, well, they will have to wait a little bit longer to figure out how to have a study done.” 

Gagliardi, the graduate student, works on campus researching COVID-19 and what specifically causes stronger infections in human cells. Her work in Biology Professor Taisuke Izumi’s lab explores why long COVID-19 symptoms differ between males and females, and was featured in an article on AU’s website. 

Gagliardi remembers asking herself what would happen to the lab’s funding after hearing about the cuts. She said her lab was lucky. Like Saldanha’s, the funding for her research had been a one-time payment.

“But there’s a part of me that worries, next year, can we get that same type of funding?” Gagliardi said. “Can we get that grant again?”

Being a student helps Gagliardi feel a little more protected during turbulent times, she said. She said she’s buying herself some time by staying in school while actively looking for jobs. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree and is set to graduate in May 2027. 

“I’m affected, but not in the way some people are affected,” Gagliardi said. “I think I’m more so affected in terms of my future and what I want to do and everything.” 

Losing young U.S. scientists

Researchers said funding obstacles, including a brand new package of regulations that could affect researchers who want federal support, may put the United States behind for years. Aquila said that even if funding is restored, research in the United States may not recover its standing.

“This whole generation of new, early career researchers is quitting, either to other countries or different jobs in the states,” Aquila said. “But the sad thing is that when you bring back funding, all the people aren’t coming back. All these people are gone now. So you’re basically losing a whole generation of scientists.” 

Siddiqui saw that firsthand. He said one of his mentees, the same fellow who was headed toward a national lab position before being laid off, took a job researching abroad.

“One of the reasons why a lot of scientists want to work in the United States is because of the support for research and the funding that is available in this country,” Siddiqui said. “And what this now does is, if they don’t see a future for themselves in this country, they will think about moving to other countries.”

According to data from Grant Witness, an organization that tracks grant terminations, federal cuts last year disrupted 671 Environmental Protection Agency grants, 2,018 NSF grants and 5,522 NIH grants. While these organizations and others have reinstated over 8,000 of them, according to Grant Witness, researchers and research organizations lost nearly $37 billion in unspent funds after the federal government froze or revoked grants.

Cuts to existing grants aren’t the only obstacle AU’s professor-level researchers see to the future of domestic research. If approved, a proposed regulation that the Office of Management and Budget released on May 29 will give the federal government more power to regulate grant programs and discretion to terminate programs that do not align with an administration’s goals.

In a letter to the Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology, Saldanha said the regulation would create challenges for small scientific societies that focus on trainees.

Siddiqui said the regulation would give more power to political appointees to make budget decisions and demote peer reviewers to an advisory status. He said the regulation would limit what topics researchers can study, reducing free expression and exploration.

“The changes will deter the U.S. from remaining the global leader in science, technology, and innovation,” Siddiqui wrote in a June 26 email to AWOL.

Both Aquila and Saldanha said U.S. research and development will fall behind other countries. Saldanha said Germany, France and Sweden have been welcoming out-of-work American scientists. He also said he believes scientific and technological progress will likely move to China.

Before the cuts, China was outpacing the United States in research and development growth. In 2023, the number of full-time equivalent researchers in the U.S. decreased by an estimated 0.2% but grew by 13.8% in China, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. China had more full-time equivalent researchers than the U.S. for at least the two years before.

“China’s going to win,” Saldanha said. “China’s going to be on the forefront. Europe is going to be next.”

“Most things do stabilize”

Student researchers also said they have hope that the future of research in the United States will grow more stable.

Graduate student Summer Orledge said she finds the future hard to predict. Last semester marked her first term at AU after graduating from the University of Mary Washington in Virginia with a bachelor’s degree in environmental science. 

Orledge began looking into graduate programs when funding cuts to research were first announced. She said the Trump administration was making “crazy” proposals to slash federal science research funding, especially in the environmental field. 

Funding freezes hit Orledge’s undergraduate research lab at Mary Washington. The lab’s work involved environmental justice research, which she said the Trump administration might have deemed a “buzzword.” The money, which came from an EPA grant, eventually came through. But there were delays, she said. 

The cuts made her worry about whether she would be able to get into a graduate program, Orledge said. The idea that schools wouldn’t have space for her, or that an advisor might not have the money to take on another student, caused her major alarm. Still, after undergrad, she  said she decided to attend graduate school to continue her research. 

“It’s definitely my passion,” Orledge said. “I think it is very disheartening to watch these major cuts occur.” 

Since then, she said that while federal funding isn’t in great shape, it’s better than it was when she started her search for graduate programs. 

Orledge currently works in Environmental Science Professor Stephen MacAvoy’s lab, researching how Bisphenol A, an industrial chemical found in many plastics, affects marine life in Washington’s Anacostia River. She’s using the work to write her thesis. 

MacAvoy has been working on the Anacostia for the past two decades, Orledge said. He applied for a grant a year ago and won it. The grant kept the lab in good hands — he used the money to fund lab supplies and his researchers’ wages. 

Talking to MacAvoy and knowing that the Anacostia’s remediation efforts will always need people keeps Orledge grounded, she said. When thinking about the future of job openings in the research industry, the uncertainty motivates her to work harder, she said. Her goal is to one day monitor the river professionally.

“I think, ultimately, most things do stabilize,” Orledge said. “If I could talk to myself from a year ago, I would probably tell myself not to be such an alarmist.”

Gagliardi isn’t necessarily turning away from research positions, but she said she plans to explore the private sector for greater security. Gagliardi said grant cuts impacted the private sector less compared to government-funded positions.

Both student researchers said they feel a mix of hope and nervousness thinking about the future. But at this moment, Gagliardi said, the best thing to do is wait.

“I don’t think the administration necessarily understands what they cut,” Gagliardi said, referring to the Trump administration. “I think, unless you have people in positions of power who do understand what they’re affecting, there won’t be change.”

Edited by Ava Ramsdale, Mary-Clare Ingram, Kyle Galvin and Will Sytsma.