The future of American science in 2026 hangs in the balance, and the choices we make now will shape global progress for decades to come. But here's where it gets controversial: recent political shifts threaten to undo nearly a century of scientific leadership by the United States, sparking urgent questions about how to safeguard the very foundation of innovation and discovery.
For nearly 100 years, the U.S. has stood at the forefront of scientific achievement across a broad spectrum—from breakthroughs in medicine, food safety, environmental protection, and disease control to pioneering space exploration and astrophysics. The country has invested heavily in fundamental research, attracting top scientists worldwide, and generating Nobel-winning discoveries. U.S.-based institutions and projects—like the Hubble Space Telescope, the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, and planetary exploration missions—have advanced our understanding of the universe and our planet, setting standards others aspire to reach.
Yet, the landscape shifted dramatically in 2025. Funding cuts led to the closure of key research facilities, such as the NOAA climate and weather centers, and NASA's libraries faced shutdowns. Thousands of talented scientists lost their government positions—what was once a vibrant, growing workforce is now shrinking rapidly. Major projects were canceled or postponed, including the highly anticipated Mars Sample Return and the Thirty Meter Telescope, which was poised to be the most advanced optical observatory in the Northern Hemisphere. Now, essential research infrastructures like the NASA Space Telescope Operations Center and flagship telescopes have been scaled back or shut down entirely. Even institutions dedicated to scientific excellence found themselves at risk.
Undeniably, the scientific community didn’t stay silent. Strong voices emerged from organizations such as the American Astronomical Society, the National Academies, and the American Physical Society—warning against the erosion of our scientific capabilities. Engineers, researchers, and educators wrote letters, held protests, and lobbied Congress. At the start of 2026, these efforts bore fruit—a new congressional budget committed to restoring crucial funding for agencies like NASA and the NSF, signaling hope. But is this enough? The reality remains that the path forward is far from certain.
So, what are the strategic options for U.S. science and scientists moving ahead? Four key avenues stand out, each crucial not just for 2026 but for the sustainability of scientific progress in the long run.
1. Continue fighting for sustained support and funding
This is the most straightforward approach—persistently advocating for the financial resources needed to complete existing projects and develop new ones. Despite the setbacks, the scientific community must rally to push for policy changes and increased budget allocations. For example, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate saw the largest funding cuts in history last year, threatening ambitious endeavors like the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope—set to follow the James Webb Telescope—and stalling critical operations at observatories like DKIST. The challenge is monumental: thousands of professionals have been displaced, and pioneering projects have ground to a halt.
Fortunately, collective action has demonstrated power. Professional societies, academic institutions, and even whistleblowers have voiced alarm. Public campaigns and direct lobbying on Capitol Hill contributed to a partial reversal of these cuts. But while this “plan A” has historically been effective—heralded by leaders like NASA’s Shawn Domagal-Goldman—it’s not comprehensive. It doesn’t solve the core issue: the loss of countless scientists, canceled projects, and infrastructure that’s now in jeopardy.
2. Prepare contingencies in case government backing drastically weakens
The recent past has taught us a harsh lesson: the U.S. government can unexpectedly cut or defund vital scientific initiatives at a moment’s notice. Projects can be shut down, international collaborations can be jeopardized, and visas for foreign scientists revoked. This unpredictability demands that all scientists and project teams develop robust backup plans—diversifying funding sources, forming international partnerships, and leveraging academic communities worldwide.
The international community is already noticing the instability. For example, the European Space Agency has expressed doubts about missions like EnVision, partly due to concerns over funding uncertainties affecting instruments like VenSAR. Similarly, the LISA gravitational wave observatory, a joint ESA/NASA effort, risks losing its U.S. contributions if political situations deteriorate further. As David Spergel emphasizes, the future of U.S. science hinges on whether this instability is a temporary bump or a seismic shift—ignoring contingency plans is a gamble with potentially catastrophic consequences.
3. Salvage and build upon projects that are already lost or canceled
Even as the U.S. projects are getting cut, the global scientific stage offers opportunities. Countries like China, Japan, Canada, and Australia are stepping in—launching initiatives to attract displaced scientists, fund new projects, and establish independent research infrastructure. For instance, the Thirty Meter Telescope, once a flagship U.S. project, might still be built but outside American borders.
The exodus of U.S.-based scientists—over 8,000 visas revoked and countless others contemplating departure—mirrors historic brain drains seen during tumultuous times. But science is inherently international. The collaborative efforts continue globally: Europe is investing nearly a billion dollars to attract top U.S. talent, Japan has established a 100-billion-yen fund to recruit international researchers, and Canada and Australia are actively supporting early-career scientists.
This cooperative spirit highlights an important truth: scientific discovery transcends borders. Protecting and preserving research outside the U.S. isn’t just an emergency measure—it’s a necessary strategy to ensure global progress.
4. Develop a long-term plan to rebuild and safeguard U.S. science
Eventually, this current crisis will pass. The key is preparing for that moment—building resilient infrastructure and funding models that can withstand political upheavals. Ideas include setting aside dedicated, protected budgets that are legally impervious to political whims, or even enshrining scientific funding guarantees into constitutional law.
Institutions such as the European Southern Observatory’s Extremely Large Telescope demonstrate what sustained, unwavering investment looks like—advanced, multi-mirror telescopes with guaranteed funding that enable groundbreaking research. Similarly, the U.S. needs a future where foundational science is shielded from short-term political swings, ensuring continuous progress.
It’s tempting to focus solely on “Plan A”—the fight to restore current funding and projects. However, a resilient scientific future must embrace multiple strategies. From private donors and philanthropic foundations to international collaborations or new legal protections, building a diverse and robust framework is vital.
The Takeaway:
The upheavals of 2025 have painfully demonstrated the fragility of American scientific dominance. But amid this turmoil lies an opportunity—an urgent call to diversify, internationalize, and harden the scientific enterprise against future shocks. Whether you’re advocating for immediate funding, preparing contingency plans, or engaging with global partners, your efforts contribute to a collective mission: securing a sustainable, innovative future for science worldwide.
So I ask you—do you believe science should remain a stable, protected endeavor, or are we headed toward a future where politics unilaterally decide what we can learn and explore? Your voice can shape this debate.
