‘Fiercely stubborn’: the US scientists continuing their research amid funding cuts

US scientists faced frozen grants, cancelled awards, agency closures and stop-work orders during President Donald Trump’s second term. The review examined whether federally funded research matched administration priorities. Around 200 terms were reportedly used to flag grants, including equity, racial discrimination, climate change and gender. This matters because funding interruptions can halt research teams and long-term projects.

The administration initially terminated $3 billion in grants in 2025. About $1.4 billion from the NIH and NSF remained frozen or cancelled earlier this year. USAID’s closure also removed roughly $25 billion for international aid and development, affecting global health, disease surveillance and conservation research. Federal agencies used reviews, terminations and programme closures to stop or delay support.

Many researchers continued through lawsuits, private donations, crowdfunding, new collaborations or changed research topics. Some grants were later restored, including LGBTQ+ health awards after a court ruling. The funding disputes remain important because they shape which scientific questions can continue and which teams must adapt.

The funding losses reached several major US research agencies and fields. The administration initially terminated $3 billion in grants in 2025. Later, roughly $1.4 billion from the NIH and NSF remained frozen or cancelled. The closure of USAID removed about $25 billion for international aid and development, including research support. These figures show the scale of disruption across domestic and international science.

Affected areas included climate change, racial discrimination, diversity, gender and transgender health. USAID-supported work covered global health, infectious-disease surveillance and environmental conservation. International Affairs grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service supported conservation research. NIH and NSF researchers faced grant terminations, while researchers connected to USAID lost contracts and programmes after its shutdown.

The article does not rank individual fields or researchers by losses. It describes broad effects on researchers whose topics were flagged, including scientists studying elephants, climate change, LGBTQ+ health and international aid. Some continued with private money, crowdfunding, lawsuits, interdisciplinary work or revised research goals.

A federal research grant is government funding awarded to support a defined scientific project, team or programme. Researchers usually apply, and an agency decides whether the proposal fits its rules and priorities. Grants matter because they pay for staff, equipment, fieldwork and other project costs. The source article focuses on what happens when that support is interrupted.

An agency can freeze money by stopping payments or placing work on hold. It can cancel or terminate a grant by ending the award before its planned completion. In 2025, the NIH and NSF began terminating research grants, while USAID funds were frozen and many contracts and grants were terminated. These actions followed policy reviews and stop-work orders.

Funding can also be restored. On 1 August 2025, a US district court ruled that the NIH could not terminate grants concerning sexual and gender minorities’ health and ordered funding reinstated. The article does not describe every grant rule or administrative procedure, so these definitions use standard research-funding practice.

Researchers have used several strategies to keep projects and teams moving after federal support disappeared. They sought private donations and crowdfunding, challenged grant cancellations in court, and explored collaborations across disciplines. Others adjusted their research focus or moved toward alternative topics. These responses matter because they preserve work and help teams remain resilient during prolonged uncertainty.

The article gives several mechanisms for adaptation. A project can replace a government grant with donations or public fundraising. A lawsuit can challenge an agency’s decision and potentially restore support. Researchers can also share expertise through interdisciplinary work or redirect an investigation toward a fundable question. Some scientists even made their research animals into viral Internet content to raise awareness and money.

These solutions do not provide a uniform replacement for federal support. Their success depends on public interest, private donors, legal outcomes and researchers’ ability to change direction. Still, the article describes scientists as continuing their work productively despite funding cuts, closures and government scrutiny.

When research funding stops suddenly, projects may lose the money needed for staff, fieldwork and ongoing operations. Stop-work orders can halt activity even when a project was already approved. Agency closures can also remove the administrative systems and contracts that connect researchers with partners. This matters especially for work that depends on continuous international cooperation.

USAID funds were frozen in early 2025, its website and most programmes were shut down, and 5,200 contracts and grants were terminated. The lost international-aid support included research on global health, infectious-disease surveillance and environmental conservation. Grants for conservation research funded through the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s International Affairs programme were also halted under a stop-work order.

The article does not measure specific health outcomes from these disruptions. It does show that research capacity and partnerships were put under pressure. If support remains uncertain, teams may shift topics, seek private money or leave projects unfinished, while international programmes lose continuity and resources.

Researchers and professional organizations sued after federal agencies terminated or threatened grants. The disputes included research on LGBTQ+ health and other topics affected by the administration’s review. Plaintiffs sought to challenge the government’s authority or reasoning and to protect approved research from being cancelled for policy reasons. The lawsuits show that funding decisions can become legal disputes, not only administrative choices.

In April and May 2025, individual researchers, the American Public Health Association, and Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality filed lawsuits against the NIH. On 1 August, a US district court ruled in the GLMA case that the NIH could not terminate grants related to the health of sexual and gender minorities. The court ordered the funding reinstated.

Courts can block an agency action, require funds to be restored or determine that a termination violated legal limits. The article does not say that every lawsuit succeeded. It shows that litigation became one route for researchers to keep projects operating while broader funding decisions remained contested.

Basic research investigates how the world works without requiring an immediate practical result. Governments support it because researchers cannot reliably predict which findings will later become useful. Long projects also need stable support for fieldwork, equipment, staff and data. This paragraph uses established scientific knowledge because the article does not directly explain the general rationale for basic-research funding.

The article describes research on Asian elephants in Thailand. The work studies the evolution of intelligence and how animals adapt to a rapidly changing world. It also investigates interventions to reduce human–elephant conflict. These goals combine understanding with possible practical benefits, but neither outcome is presented as a guaranteed or immediate result. Research can therefore require patience and flexibility.

Sudden cancellations make long-term investigation harder, especially when teams must change topics or search for private money. The article shows scientists adapting through donations, collaborations and lawsuits. If support remains unstable, research questions may be shaped more by short-term funding opportunities than by their scientific importance.