President Trump Releases FY26 Budget Outline

President Trump released the high-level details of his fiscal year 2026 budget request, proposing deep cuts in funding for non-defense discretionary programs, proposing dramatic reorganization, realignment, and reductions across the federal government, and flat funding defense accounts while broadly increasing funding on immigration enforcement and border security funding.  

The President’s budget outline, or ‘skinny’ budget, does not include all agency or program-level details, which will be released in the coming weeks, but the topline information and limited details available show an overall $163 billion (-22.6 percent) proposed cut to non-defense discretionary spending, with specific recommended cuts of roughly 43 percent to the National Institutes of Health, 57 percent to the National Science Foundation (NSF), 54 percent to the EPA, 25 percent to NASA, and 14 percent to the Department of Energy Office of Science. At the same time, the President is proposing discretionary increases of 1 percent and 65 percent for the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, respectively, for military spending, border security, and immigration enforcement, which are expected to be supplemented by additional mandatory spending in the reconciliation package. 

As with any Presidential budget request, this proposal is nonbinding, and Congress is not required to use it when formulating the FY26 appropriations bills, which they are expected to begin doing this summer. In President Trump’s first term, he routinely proposed austere budgets, which were rejected by Democratic and Republican majorities in Congress. In response to the FY26 request, Republican Appropriations Chairs Susan Collins (R-ME) and Tom Cole (R-OR) reiterated the constitutional role of the Congress in funding the government and prioritizing investment in high impact agencies and programs, with Collins specially referring to biomedical research. 

FY26 Budget Request 

While the “skinny” budget by definition lacks detail in many areas, the overarching justifications include some familiar themes for the administration, including government efficiency, reordering of priorities and the structure of agencies to reflect presidential priorities, downsizing federal staff, and shifting funding ad control to states. The request justifies many cuts as removing wasteful spending or programs focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion and those connected to addressing climate chance and a part of the “Green New Deal.”  In addition, the proposal seeks to cut some signature initiatives of the Biden Administration, including eliminating $22.5 billion from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 

For the NIH, in addition to the proposed overall $18 billion cut to the agency, the budget seeks to eliminate funding for the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the Fogarty International Center, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and the National Institute of Nursing Research. It also calls for the consolidation of other institutes and centers and the creation of the following focus areas: the National Institute on Body Systems Research; National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research; National Institute of General Medical Sciences; National Institute of Disability Related Research; and National Institute on Behavioral Health. The Advanced Research Projects Administration for Health (ARPA-H) would be retained, although the preliminary budget does not include a proposed funding level. The budget also proposes cutting the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 35 percent, prioritizing its statistical work, and moving its functions to the new HHS Office of Strategy.  

At NSF, the budget proposal claims its cuts are concentrated in “climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science.” The bulk of additional proposed reductions at NSF are in programs to expand participation among in STEM education and scientific research. The budget proposal states a goal to prioritize and preserve funding for artificial intelligence and quantum sciences across research agencies, although specifics are not available and listed funding levels do not seem to reflect these priorities. 

Below are charts to illustrate the magnitude of the proposed cuts at various federal agencies and available budget details on research university priority accounts. Where the ‘skinny’ budget did not include funding levels, cells are left blank.  

*Because FY25 is funded under a full-year continuing resolution (CR), the chart below is compared against final FY24, for which more detailed program-level funding data was available. Theoretically, the funding levels for an FY25 CR should be identical or very comparable to final FY24. 

Looking Ahead  

The President will release the full version of his FY26 budget in the coming weeks, which will provide more program level detail and across agencies and on proposals to reorganize or reduce the federal government. President Trump is also preparing a request for Congress to rescind $9 billion of previously enacted FY25 funding, which reportedly focuses on the State Department, including USAID, and Corporation for Public Broadcasting, including PBS and NPR. At the same time, House Republicans have begun the contentious process of writing the components of their reconciliation package, which is expected to dominate the legislative agenda through the summer. The Reconciliation bill will be focused on extending the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and advancing further cuts proposed by the President and identifying and enacting offsetting cuts to mandatory funding programs, like Medicaid, SNAP nutrition benefits, student loans, and other areas. While not affecting discretionary funding like the “skinny” budget, higher education and the University face significant threats in the Reconciliation bill as the Congress considers increases in the endowment tax, cuts to student loans, and potential other changes.  

As always, Harvard’s DC-based federal relations office will remain closely engaged with peers and policymakers to advocate for research university priorities and will continue to report more detail on each of these major areas as it becomes available. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact Suzanne Day (suzanne_day@harvard.edu), Kara Haas (kara_haas@harvard.edu), or Peter DeYoe (peter_deyoe@harvard.edu).