Ag Weather Forum

The New York Times "Climate Forward" newsletter offers details about the extent and impact of federal budget cuts this year that are worth consideration. The newsletter title is "America's Lost Science." The opening sentence is stark: "By most metrics, 2025 has been the worst year for the American scientific enterprise in modern history."

Federal budget cuts since January have totaled more than $1 billion in grants to the National Science Foundation (NSF), and $4.5 billion to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In addition, thousands of science professionals have lost their jobs at the NSF; NIH; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the National Park Service (NPS).

Next year looks even worse, according to the newsletter, written by Times health and science reporter Alan Burdick. For 2026, the proposed budget from the White House would cut the NSF by 56.9%; the NIH by 39.3%; and NASA by 24.3%, including 47.3% of the NASA science research budget. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey would lose its $299 million budget for ecosystem research. Also, all U.S. Forest Service research ($300 million) would be axed. And, NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would lose all its $635 million funding for research on climate, habitat conservation and air chemistry, along with studying ocean, coastal and Great Lakes environments.

In total, the Trump administration plans to cut the 2026 federal science budget by 25%, from $198 billion this year to $154 billion in 2026. The New York Times newsletter cites the American Association for the Advancement of Science as estimating that such a drop in funding "would represent the smallest amount that the federal government has spent on science in this century."

But weather, climate, the environment and health issues are not the only subjects affected by the funding cuts. The proposed federal 2026 budget also features a cut of $602 million for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). The NIFA funds agricultural research at land grant universities and other institutions.

Ag economist David Widmar, co-founder and managing partner of Ag Economic Insights in West Lafayette, Indiana, noted in an email that funding cuts made to reduce wasteful spending can also keep basic research from being done. "The challenge ... is that sorting out the winners and losers is extremely difficult. This is especially true for foundational research, which often serves as the steppingstone to commercial breakthroughs," Widmar said. He also specified that USDA has found that each dollar spent on basic research brings a $20 commercial benefit.

"When the U.S. government steps back (from research funding), two things happen," Widmar said. "First, total research funding declines, reducing the number of potential gains. Second, U.S. public funds represent a smaller share of the total, so a larger share of the gain that does occur will come from private or international-funded efforts."

The proposed budgets are not final, and some funding could be added back to these programs. But the outlook is pretty firm on the idea of "less" rather than "more" when it comes to research funds across all U.S. science areas as we look ahead to next year.

See more DTN coverage of USDA layoffs here:

-- "USDA Cuts Stretch Across Nation's Top Research Labs to Small, Urban Farmers Markets," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

-- "Trump Administration Begins Major USDA Reorganization, Moving DC Staff to Agency Hubs," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

-- "Trump's USDA Reorganization Plan Sparks Concerns Over Service Disruptions, Staff Exodus," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

-- Editors' Notebook, "Abort USDA Reorganization Mission," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Bryce Anderson can be reached at bryce.anderson@dtn.com

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.