US lawmakers vote to reduce NSF funding by 20%
A US House subcommittee voted to reduce the National Science Foundation's budget by 20% in 2027, while maintaining NASA's overall funding and cutting NOAA's budget by 5%. The proposal rejects the more severe cuts suggested by President Trump's administration but still faces opposition from Democrats and some scientists. The Senate will draft its own version of the spending bill, and differences between the two chambers will need to be reconciled before final passage.
- ▪The House Appropriations Subcommittee proposed reducing the NSF's 2027 budget to $7 billion, down from $8.8 billion in 2026.
- ▪NASA's total budget would remain at $24.4 billion, though its science funding would decrease to $6 billion from $7.2 billion.
- ▪The Trump administration had previously proposed a 55% cut to the NSF and significant reductions for NOAA and NASA, which Congress rejected.
- ▪The Senate has not yet scheduled a hearing on its version of the science spending bill, and final appropriations will require compromise between the House and Senate.
- ▪All eight Republicans on the subcommittee voted for the bill, while all six Democrats voted against it.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
NEWS 30 April 2026 US lawmakers vote to reduce science spending – but reject Trump’s massive cuts A draft bill would preserve NASA’s overall funding but downsize the National Science Foundation’s budget by 20%. By Dan Garisto0 Dan Garisto Dan Garisto is a freelance reporter in Syracuse, New York. View author publications Search author on: PubMed Google Scholar Email Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Reddit Whatsapp X President Trump’s proposal for huge cuts to a number of key science agencies was rejected by a Congressional panel Thursday. Credit: Kevin Dietsch/GettyMembers of the US House of Representatives signaled that they would again reject a proposal by the administration of US President Donald Trump to slash science spending.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Nature.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Nature
