The Rise (and Fall?) of the National Science Foundation

For most of the past century, the United States has been the global leader in scientific discovery. In just the last five years, American scientists have won more Nobel Prizes than the rest of the world combined. But we weren’t always leaders in scientific advancement. It wasn’t until the 1950 establishment of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the largest funding source for basic research in the country, that America became a powerhouse of modernization.

Under the Trump administration, the same system that boosted the United States to scientific dominance is being recklessly dismantled. In the past few weeks, the newly created Department of Government Efficiency has ordered the NSF to reduce its staff by 25-50 percent to meet strict new budget targets. They have already fired 168 workers. Even more alarming, the administration is considering slashing the NSF’s $9-billion budget to just $3-4 billion, jeopardizing funding for thousands of scientists and their research. Beyond budget cuts, political interference is reshaping the NSF’s priorities. A recent executive order from President Trump mandates a review of all funded projects for flagged terms associated with DEI initiatives such as “gender,” “ethnicity” and “systemic.” Any projects containing these words must be modified to comply with the order or risk losing funding. Not only does this policy effectively roll back critical diversity initiatives, it will make research into important topics like health care much more difficult to fund.

Because many scientists conduct their work at universities, these policies are a profound threat to higher education. Many of the technologies and medical breakthroughs we rely on today — from computers to Viagra — were first developed within university research labs. American universities’ renowned science programs attract the brightest minds from around the world. In fact, 43 percent of America’s STEM work force was born in other countries. This is due both to the quality of education in our university system and the groundbreaking scientific advancements made within these institutions — made possible in large part by the National Science Foundation.

It is important to understand how funds from an NSF grant are distributed to universities. In 2024, the NSF had a total budget of about $9 billion to support scientists around the country across all disciplines, including biology, geology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, psychology, sociology, and even some parts of engineering and computer science. Compared to the $841-billion budget for the Department of Defense, this is a drop in the bucket of the total national budget. With that $9 billion, around 11,000 projects were awarded funds. Of those 11,000 projects, the average NSF research grant in 2024 was approximately $150,000. That money covers the salaries plus benefits of graduate students in the lab. Often this salary is somewhere around $25,000 and for the length of the grant (typically 3 years). And then there is the university’s overhead, or “indirect costs,” a certain percentage of the total grant that goes to the university for keeping the lights on. This portion varies by institution and typically ranges anywhere from 20-80 percent of the requested costs, though this also might soon change under the Trump administration. Slashing the budget of the NSF even further will devastate the engines of discovery and innovation without making a dent in the overall national budget.

In recent decades, the National Science Foundation has paid for billions of dollars of basic research each year, but this was not always the case. Traditionally, American science was supported by philanthropists and other powerful people. In fact, before World War II, government funding was incredibly rare in the United States, mostly granted to aeronautics and agriculture studies. This meant that to fund their research, scientists needed to be able to convince someone rich that their research was valuable. For example, Alexander Graham Bell, the famous inventor of the telephone, got most of the money for his invention from the wealthy father of one of his students. He eventually married that student, securing his line of funding.

Although funding throughout the 19th and the early 20th century was limited, faculty members were still expected to engage in research in addition to teaching. Herbert Hoover, the U.S. secretary of commerce from 1921-28, was concerned by the lack of financial support for basic research. Up to this point, the United States largely let the rest of the world lead the way in scientific discovery. Hoover saw this as a national weakness and campaigned to establish a national research endowment to support university research with funds provided by industry. Though Hoover was adamant that the future of the nation depended on our scientific prowess, industry failed to see how they would benefit from research that might not lead to an immediate application. They declined to provide funds, and Hoover’s endowment never came to fruition. It wasn’t until 1940 that President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved the National Defense Research Committee, the forerunner to today’s National Science Foundation.

The pivotal figure in the shift to government funding of science was Vannevar Bush, the former vice president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At the time of his tenure, MIT relied on corporate sponsors to fund their labs. This was unusual; most institutions depended on student tuition, private philanthropy, and grants from local industries for funding. After the stock market crash of 1929, however, the university found itself struggling to stay afloat. Most administrators of private universities felt that the government had no business in higher education, and their peers at public universities largely agreed. But with the Depression looming, Bush decided to reconsider federal funding for his university. He had the idea of creating contracts with the federal government to support basic research across all scientific disciplines. In 1938, Bush was elected president of the Carnegie Institution, which afforded him the platform to influence federal scientific policy. He oversaw the creation of the National Defense Research Committee in June 1940, which awarded thousands of research contracts to universities across the country under his watch. By 1945, 90 percent of MIT’s annual operating budget came from federal research contracts.

The National Defense Research Committee was created with the goal of advancing technological development for World War II. Before the war, university scientists and the military stayed largely in their own lanes. In fact, there had been a lack of cooperation between civilian scientists and the U.S. military during WWI, and the feelings of contempt ran both ways. Scientists at the time considered the enlistment of their skills for the military as a “desecration upon the temple of science,” as the historian Daniel Kevles put it. At the same time, any scientists who did try to work with the military ran into a wall of prejudice: Military officers didn’t believe scientists to be as qualified as service members. In fact, in the 1930s some scientists had tried to collaborate with the armed services but were told that no civilian could match a service member’s judgement about the practicality of new weapons. These attitudes were of great concern for Bush, who wanted to use the power of science to enhance the U.S. military. By helping channel federal funding directly to scientists, he was able to mend this fissure, and both parties came to see the benefit of this relationship. Scientists had the financial means to perform high-quality research, and the military had access to the brightest minds in the country. With Bush’s guidance, the National Defense Research Committee supported the development of radar, sonar, the mass production of penicillin, and (most controversially) the Manhattan Project. Without a doubt, this new funding system greatly increased the power of the U.S. military.

The collaboration between scientists and the military was thriving under the National Defense Research Committee, and Roosevelt asked Bush to consider how the organization could be extended into peacetime. In response, Bush penned a report entitled “Science, the Endless Frontier,” proposing what would eventually become the National Science Foundation. The report highlighted the boundless potential of basic science. Despite Bush’s intimate involvement with military operations, his report emphasized that “the most important ways in which the Government can promote industrial research are to increase the flow of new scientific knowledge through support of basic research and to aid in the development of scientific talent.”

Bush’s grand vision finally materialized in 1950, when President Harry S. Truman signed a bill creating the National Science Foundation to support fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering within universities. There were several reasons Bush felt that universities were the best place for scientific discovery. The success of science depended on an atmosphere that was “relatively free from the adverse pressure of convention, prejudice, or commercial necessity,” while providing security and intellectual freedom to its researchers. Bush understood that new knowledge can create opposition, since it often challenges current beliefs. That could be a barrier to true discovery within government and industry.

Although the partnership between academe and the government had been largely successful, Bush recognized the risks of relying on federal funding for research. Anticipating potential conflicts, he established fundamental principles to safeguard the integrity of federally funded science. These principles emphasized stable support for university research while ensuring complete autonomy in methodology, personnel, and the scope of inquiry. Bush was not alone in his apprehensions; others have echoed concerns over the decades. During the 1960s, as the Vietnam War escalated, students across the country protested military funding of universities, highlighting the tension between government influence and academic independence. The Trump administration’s assault on the NSF represents precisely the kind of political interference Bush sought to prevent — one that threatens not only scientific progress but also the very foundation of academic freedom.

Thanks to Bush’s vision, American universities have not only been powerhouses for discovery — they have also been the training ground for new scientific talent. Bush was concerned about the cost of higher education, which might force the country into “neglecting great talent among those who fail to attend college for economic reasons.” His solution was the mosaic of grants and fellowships that the National Science Foundation now supports. He proposed that these grants include undergraduate scholarships, graduate fellowships, and support for advanced training. Since the initiation of the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship in 1952, an estimated 70,000 graduate students have been supported while earning their advanced degrees in various scientific disciplines. According the 2024 NSF Financial Report, 357,600 people were directly supported this past year, including researchers, postdoctoral fellows, trainees, teachers, and students. Outside these figures, NSF programs indirectly impact millions of people, from pre-K to college students, through educational curricula such as museums and outreach programs.

What Will Trump’s Presidency Mean For Higher Ed?

Keep up to date on the latest news and information, and contact our journalists covering this ongoing story.

Since its inception, the NSF has played a pivotal role in establishing the United States as a global leader in scientific discovery. But this is not the first time its funding has faced serious threats. In recent years, Congress slashed the 2024 NSF budget by 8 percent as part of a bill to avert a partial government shutdown. The latest proposals from the Trump administration are just another chapter in a recurring pattern of underinvestment in science. This weakening of scientific focus is already taking a toll on the United States’ global standing. By several key metrics, we are losing ground to China, which has already surpassed the United States in the number of science and engineering Ph.D.s awarded and the volume of research published in top-tier scientific journals. If we continue to fall behind, the consequences will extend far beyond a diminished global reputation. Scientific research drives innovation, fuels new industries, creates high-tech jobs, and strengthens the economy. It enhances public health, secures our food supply, and advances climate science. Undermining the NSF is not just a threat to universities and researchers — it is a threat to the well-being of every American.

If the Trump administration truly seeks to make America great, it must recognize that sustained investment in the NSF is essential for scientific progress and national prosperity. Ensuring this future, however, requires action — not just from scientists, but from the public as well. Across the country, researchers and advocates are mobilizing against the dismantling of our nation’s scientific infrastructure. Graduate students nationwide have organized Stand Up for Science, an initiative calling on scientists and citizens to rally in Washington, D.C., on March 7 in defense of research and innovation. As budgets continue to shrink, more protests are sure to follow. This is a critical moment for American science and the future it shapes. We cannot afford to be silent.