Research funding comes from a myriad of sources, each with its own priorities, processes and expectations to bring their ideas to life. Broadly speaking, research is financed by the United States government, private industries, nonprofit foundations and academic institutions. However, the most competitive source of this support is the federal government.
Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy are among the largest backers of scientific research in the U.S.
For the 2024 fiscal year, the federal government, under former President Joseph R. Biden, is estimated to have spent more than $180 billion in research and development across various disciplines. This marks a small decrease from the 2023 fiscal year, where the U.S. government spent approximately $200 billion.
Under President Donald J. Trump, the government proposed that it will spend a little over $200 billion on research and development. But the “priorities” — what federal agencies receive funding increases — greatly differ; for example, while the Department of Defense’s budget has increased, other agencies, especially those supporting scientific research, have downsized.
Since March, Trump has threatened and announced severe funding cuts to a multitude of government agencies, particularly the NIH and the NSF.
Despite the essential role research plays in driving innovation, funding for advancing scientific disciplines remains a relatively small portion of the federal budget. For Christine Gilbert, an assistant professor of climate communication in both the School of Communication and Journalism and School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, this disparity is cause for concern.
“When you look at the budget of the [U.S.], the amount of money that goes toward the [NSF] and the [NIH] is so small compared to other things like our Department of Defense budget,” Gilbert said. “The justification seems so short sighted to me when we think about what science does for us in terms of medical breakthroughs and scientific discoveries and technological advancements,” Gilbert said.
Jack Evangelista, a senior majoring in chemistry, will graduate in May and attend the University of California, Berkeley, to earn a Ph.D. with a specialization in physical chemistry. Despite being accepted into one of the top graduate programs for physical chemistry, Evangelista is concerned with how the federal funding cuts will impact him. One issue, he explained, is the risk that universities may rescind offers to students due to reduced funding for research programs.
“For myself, I haven’t gotten rescinded [and I don’t think I will, even though it could happen at any time]. But for other people, I know some people that got accepted to four or five schools and they got at least one or two rescinded offers,” Evangelista said.
Evangelista then explained how incoming Ph.D. students are being advised by one another to not “deny anything or wait as long as you can [before denying a university]” because of how abruptly higher education institutions across the country are rescinding offers.
“People are living in fear of waking up [one morning and] getting an email saying, ‘We are rescinding your offer,’” Evangelista said. “For two or three weeks after I got in, I was like, ‘Oh my God, am I going to wake up and see my offer get rescinded?’”
Alex Brookes, an alumnus from the class of 2024 who earned a bachelor of science in biology, pursued a post baccalaureate program following his graduation to gain more research experience prior to applying to Ph.D. programs.
When he initially heard about Trump’s cuts to federal funding, he became anxious.
“Seeing [multiple research labs rescind their offers to me] made me feel like there’s some sort of systemic collapse,” Brookes said. “I had a genuine anxiety that there would be no more research in this country.”
Although top universities like Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania have experienced funding cuts from the Trump administration, Stony Brook Vice President for Research Kevin Gardner reassured The Statesman that Stony Brook has not been heavily impacted.
“We are concerned about the impacts, which have been limited so far, from cuts to federally-funded research,” Gardner wrote in an email.
In an exclusive interview with Interim President Richard L. McCormick, he clarified that as of April 23, 17 faculty members have lost some amount of federal funding and the University has lost one grant.
“Even if we’re not hit the way Columbia University or Harvard University is, these are real people whose careers are in jeopardy because of the federal cuts,” McCormick said. “Imagine if you were a second-year graduate student and your mentor lost funding, your funding would be gone, too. It’s a serious thing.”
Gardner also said the University is prioritizing helping those affected by the federal funding cuts.
“We are appealing cuts and have an emergency plan so that graduate students and [post-doctoral students] aren’t subject to career-changing immediate loss of funding,” Gardner wrote. “Our first priority is to not abandon our students and trainees who are a critical mission of our university.”
Joanne Davila, the chair of the Department of Psychology and a distinguished professor of clinical psychology, wrote in an email to The Statesman that these federal changes have impacted how some faculty members in the department can conduct their research, whether they are unable to secure grant funding for their research or having to change their research area, “which is challenging to do.”
“Our department brings in many grants and we’ve been particularly affected by the reductions in indirect costs that the federal government has instituted,” Davila wrote. “This takes away money that allows the [University] to provide the resources needed [by] faculty to conduct their research. Some of our faculty have also been directly affected by cuts to federal programs, including the Fulbright [Scholar] program.”
Davila clarified that the Department of Psychology remains committed to continuing their faculty’s research.
“We continue to encourage faculty to submit research grants and engage in their science to the best of their ability,” she wrote.
Gardner also emphasized to The Statesman that there have been no changes in admissions to Ph.D. programs at Stony Brook.
In an email sent to the entire Stony Brook community on April 16, Interim President Richard L. McCormick discussed the University’s commitment to “advancing vital research and discovery.”
“This commitment is unwavering and remains essential to the very nature of Stony Brook,” McCormick wrote. “The innovative work conducted by our faculty, postdoctoral researchers, and students — alongside the dedication of our staff — is central to our mission as a [Research 1 flagship] and leading global institution.”
On April 22, McCormick was one of the hundreds of other university presidents that publicly condemned the Trump administration for infringing on a university’s autonomy.
In the same exclusive interview with The Statesman, he explained why he signed the letter.
“These reductions in support for research pose serious threats to one of our University’s core missions, which is the creation of new knowledge and the use of that knowledge to benefit the economy, healthcare and everything we value,” McCormick said.
The stakes are high for institutions navigating federal funding cuts, especially as securing grants remains vital for research funding. Understanding how these grants are awarded and how the funding is allocated explains why even modest reductions can have wide-ranging effects.
Federal agencies publish grant opportunities outlining the types of research they want to support, eligibility criteria and application deadlines. Researchers — often referred to as principal investigators — submit detailed proposals describing their objectives, methodology, expected impacts and budget, which must include both direct and indirect costs, also known as facilities and administrative costs.
Direct costs typically include buying equipment, running experiments and funding salaries for faculty members, postdoctoral fellows and undergraduate and graduate students. Behind every research project, however, are indirect costs. These are less-visible costs that help research labs continue operating by purchasing office supplies and equipment, maintaining facilities, financing salaries of general management staff and transportation to and from research sites.
These costs are negotiated between each institution and the federal government. The percentage of indirect costs typically ranges from 25% to 75% of the direct costs. As of April 11, federal agencies like the NIH and the Department of Energy have capped indirect costs at 15%.
Submitted proposals undergo rigorous peer review, during which scientists and experts evaluate their scientific merits, feasibility and alignment with funding priorities. Highly rated proposals are recommended for funding.
If approved, the grant is awarded to the institution, not to the principal investigator. The institution is responsible for managing the grant, ensuring compliance and submitting periodic progress and financial reports.
Jacqueline “Jack” McSweeney, an assistant professor in the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, is a coastal physical oceanographer, focusing on studying how water moves along different coastal areas like beaches, shallow waters and estuaries. Although her funding avenues have not drastically changed, the layoffs in NSF have prevented her and her lab from conducting field work this summer.
She explained that she submitted a research proposal in August 2024 and heard back from NSF the following December that although it was not declined for funding recommendations, the federal agency could not make any recommendations until the department’s budget was finalized. Five months later, she hasn’t heard any updates since.
“Even if it got funded tomorrow, we don’t have time to necessarily order [needed equipment or reserve ship time. These things take a lot of time in terms of planning,” McSweeney said.
While necessary, indirect costs have prompted criticism. Some have criticized it for bloating overhead expenses. However, university officials argue that they often do not recover the full amount needed to support research infrastructure and frequently subsidize federally funded research with their own funds.
In reality, these fees reflect the cost of conducting research. Cutting them can compromise the quality, compliance and sustainability of research institutions.
Gilbert explained that when a federal agency rewards a researcher with a grant, typically the individual or institution will also request for the agency to cover a certain percentage of the indirect costs associated with the project.
For example, if an institution is rewarded a $1 million grant, they will request the rewarder for a 60% indirect cost rate. If they agree, then the agency will spend a total of $1.6 million on the project.
“Going from 60% to 15% [indirect cost cover rate, for example] means that not only will people lose their jobs, but we’ve got to figure out other ways to pay for the things that we’ve always been paying for,” Gilbert explained.
Despite these “unprecedented” times, Gardner stressed Stony Brook’s dedication to minimize the negative impacts of these grant cuts.
“We are working to minimize impacts on our research and education missions, and the people who carry out those missions who rely on the support of the competitively awarded grants from the federal government. The level of disruption to the 75-year-old compact between the federal government and research universities is unprecedented,” Gardner wrote.
In the same email, McCormick clarified that the University is working with SUNY and the Office of the New York State Attorney General to help address the situation.
“Cuts to funding and drastic agency reorganizations threaten the vital federally funded research that takes place across our entire enterprise every day,” McCormick wrote. “Working with SUNY and the Office of the Attorney General, Stony Brook […] supports the public good and promotes economic and national competitiveness. We [also] communicate regularly with our congressional delegation to continue garnering their support and influence.”
The disruption is already rippling through faculty decisions about student admissions and research planning. Gilbert pointed to the “inevitable” consequences of a sustained decrease in funding.
“When there is less money to support graduate students and [postdoctoral students], there’s simply less ability to admit students,” Gilbert said. “It is inevitable that if the funding structure doesn’t go back to how it was before, that there will be a shrink in the research ability of the [United States,] which is upsetting.”
But beyond immediate programmatic concerns, Gilbert also highlighted the emotional toll the uncertainty has had on researchers.
“We’re feeling uncertain and that’s the thing that’s been so scary,” Gilbert said. “[When you go to the University administration like Gardner’s town hall meetings], you hope that they have some answers. Then you kind of realize that no one really has any answers.”
For McSweeney, she feels “a level of anxiety” as she watches funding opportunities for coastal ocean observations disappear.
“The University is doing everything it can to provide support which I really appreciate, but it’s not clear to me what that [support] is going to look like if all the funding opportunities for my subfield are nonexistent in six months to a year,” McSweeney said. “The University is certainly doing what they can and I appreciate the efforts, but it doesn’t necessarily change the day-to-day experience.”
Evangelista said one thing he noticed was that primary investigators are trying to ensure they have enough money for the upcoming years under the Trump administration.
“One of the people I was interested in [joining their lab at the University of California, Berkeley] has seven people who are graduating this year. [I met the primary investigator] and he said, ‘I would normally take seven people, but I’m actually taking three [people for the time being].’ This [situation] makes finding a group [to join] more competitive and adds onto that stress of being in a Ph.D. program,” Evangelista said.
Gilbert said these constraints also affect job prospects for graduate students.
“I have a graduate student who I’m working with who was a candidate for a national parks internship over the summer and that’s basically been paused,” Gilbert explained. “There’s concern about whether there are going to be jobs? It’s mostly about what happens when [these graduate students] leave graduate school.”
Private foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, also contribute to funding research — especially filling in funding gaps where government or industry funding is limited — such as high-risk, early-stage research proposals.
However, private investors come with their own negatives. One problem is that private investors don’t cover indirect costs, leaving primary investigators and institutions to figure out how they’re going to fund their research labs. Another problem is these investors often don’t give out large sums of grants.
For researchers like Gilbert, the median amount of grant money private funders give out, which is around $15,000, is suitable for her science communication lab since the grant will mainly address paying for staff and graduate students. On the other hand, the median grant award from the federal government is $375,000, which is more suitable for research disciplines that require expensive equipment like physical science.
“It will be interesting to see if people start to step into that area […]. But, there are still limitations with that existence,” Gilbert said.
Gilbert also felt greatly concerned to her counterparts who are more reliant on federal grants because of how resource-intensive their discipline is.
“I really feel for my colleagues who are in the physical sciences who cannot run the lab without hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy equipment, to hire technical experts and things like that,” Gilbert said. “I feel uncertain, and I’m in a pretty protected position. I imagine it only gets worse as you talk to other faculty who are even more reliant on grant funding.”
Evangelista discussed how going into the research field isn’t feasible without pursuing some form of higher education after receiving a bachelor’s degree.
“[If I got denied from all six universities I applied to], I would look into pursuing a master’s [degree] and then head into industry [a term used to describe for-profit, private research companies],” Evangelista said.
He also clarified that without having undergraduate research experience, he most likely would have pursued a master’s in physical chemistry instead of a Ph.D. and “left it as that.”
Ginkgo Wang, a junior majoring in psychology who is set to graduate in winter 2026, was initially eager to pursue a Ph.D., despite having concerns over existing problems graduate students face, such as low stipends.
“Before [Trump], I was eager to go into research in general even though I’m not too sure what I [area of study I could pursue] besides being a psychiatrist, and I still want to do it,” Wang explained. “But, I can’t go get a Ph.D. right now because it’s too dangerous, both financially and in terms of safety, because with the kind of research I want to do, all of that is getting cut.”
One research area Wang considered focuses on populations of the LGBTQ+ community and other racial minorities. However, The New York Times released a list of terms no longer supported by the federal government on March 7. Some of these terms on the list include “BIPOC,” “Black,” “LGBT,” “LGBTQ,” “pronouns” and “transgender.” As a result, Wang’s opinion changed about pursuing a Ph.D.
“I feel a deep type of anger knowing that knowledge that could benefit me and communities close to me is literally being paywalled by the current administration,” Wang said.
Davila also expressed her concerns about the limitations of who and what could be studied.
“I was extremely concerned that they would hurt not only both science and scientists, but also the public because the cuts take money away from important areas of research that directly impact public health, particularly with regard to the understanding and treatment of physical and mental health problems in at-risk people,” Davila wrote.
She also clarified there is open communication between the University, the Department of Psychology and the students studying within that department.
“We are making sure that faculty have accurate information about federal funding cuts and how the [University] is addressing this issue, as well as encouraging open discussion and support of our colleagues and students,” Davila wrote.
To McSweeney, she is concerned about how the federal government’s decision of what kinds of science is supported could mean for her.
“One of the heaviest parts of all of this is the emotional weight that comes from seeing that this work is being devalued,” McSweeney said. “I hope that as a society and [as a] scientific community, we can find ways to instill trust in the broader community [about science].”
For Gilbert, she joked about having a crystal ball to shed light on all of the uncertainties within the future of the research field.
“I don’t think there’s any world in which the scientific endeavor doesn’t shrink,” Gilbert said. “It’s going to be a bumpy road for a lot of people, for a lot of researchers, especially those first starting out who don’t have any money to pull from.”
McCormick thanked Gardner’s office for “its steady guidance and support to navigate this challenging time for Stony Brook.”
“Together, guided by our shared mission and values, we will navigate this transition and ensure that Stony Brook remains a powerful institution of discovery, innovation and global engagement,” McCormick wrote. “Thank you for your support in this work and for all you do for Stony Brook.”
Even as uncertainty looms, some are beginning to find clarity.
“I was very anxious; frankly, I still am. I have a better idea of where that anxiety comes from and how to navigate it. I was worried that I can’t pursue my field anymore. But the thing is that there’s a will, there’s a way,” Brookes said.
Evangelista has also come to terms with the situation, realizing he may need to become a graduate teaching assistant for longer than the three semesters in order to financially support himself.
“The stress hit me later than a lot of other people,” he said. “Once it hit me, I was concerned how it was going to be. But now I’ve realized that there’s nothing that I can do. That was one thing I had to tell myself: I can’t do anything to change this so that was one thing that I had to find a way to deal with. And, that’s how a lot of my friends also feel.”
Yet, Evangelista pointed out the resilience of the graduating class of 2025 despite the sociopolitical events the class has dealt with.
“I’ve heard people say that this generation of incoming Ph.D. students are going to be tough as nails because not only did we go through this but also went through COVID[-19] for undergrad,” Evangelista said.
After having some time pass by since Trump’s initial cuts to federal agencies, Brookes has found his peace — or how he describes it as his “equilibrium” — on what he wants to do in the future.
“It’s not look[ing] good financially [for me], but I’m a resilient guy, right?” Brookes joked. “I know how to be nifty and navigate with [the] little things there are.”
And yet, for him, the drive to pursue knowledge remains.
“I’ve made peace with how bad this [situation] is, how bad it might get and just keep doing what I love, which is my research [in synthetic biology]. I’ve been doing it full-time for no pay [for a while] because that’s how much I care about and how much I’m willing to pay for it,” Brookes said.
