As federal funding cuts ripple through the US higher education system, universities across the country are tightening budgets, freezing new hires, and scaling back graduate admissions, leaving PhD students and early-career researchers facing an uncertain future.
Barely a month into office, the Trump administration introduced sweeping orders that have upended the research landscape. Among them are a freeze on federal grant reviews, the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and a proposed 15 percent cap on indirect funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), all measures that have sent shockwaves through universities dependent on federal research support.
“Even existing grants aren’t being funded,” said Kimberly Cooper, a developmental geneticist at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Despite a federal judge’s ruling to lift the freeze, Cooper said the administration found a “back-door” way to block funding by preventing the NIH from posting new grant notices in the Federal Register, a critical step for any funding review. Months later, she’s still waiting for the third-year allocation of one of her ongoing grants.
For researchers like Cooper, these delays are more than bureaucratic inconveniences. “I’ve got six staff members who depend on me for their salaries, and I rely on funding that’s supposed to be there to know how long I can keep them,” she said.
Across the country, universities are reacting cautiously. Few have made public statements, but many have quietly begun freezing graduate admissions or cutting the number of new PhD offers. For generations, federal investment in science has been the bedrock of America’s global leadership in research and innovation. Cooper worries that without that support, the system could crumble. “Without graduate students and postdocs, there would be no research, no hands at the bench doing the work,” she said.
Rachel Arey, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, echoed that sentiment. “My lab has been powered almost entirely by graduate students and trainees. Every discovery we’ve made in the last five years has been thanks to them,” she said.
In the US, funding for graduate students comes from multiple sources, including federal research grants, training awards, and institutional fellowships. Many programs fund a student’s first year through teaching or rotations, after which they transition to faculty grants. This system depends heavily on consistent federal funding, and when that flow stops, everything from lab operations to student stipends is threatened.
“Graduate education wasn’t always like this,” Cooper explained. “It used to be something only the wealthy could afford, a gentleman’s pursuit. Federal funding transformed it into a paid apprenticeship that allowed us to recruit the best minds, regardless of financial background.”
Now that system is at risk. Stanford University, for example, announced a freeze on staff hiring in February, citing “uncertainty about the level of direct federal funding for scientific research.” The university also pointed to a Congressional proposal to increase taxes on endowments, funds that already cover a large share of student aid, faculty salaries, and research programs.
The timing couldn’t be worse. The cuts coincide with the graduate interview season, when departments usually finalize admissions. UCSD’s Biological Science program, which typically admits 25 new PhD students a year, has already decided to cut eight positions, a 30 percent reduction. Cooper fears more cuts could follow if funding doesn’t improve.
Meanwhile, programs that support underrepresented students in science are also vulnerable. Arey expressed concern about Baylor’s Initiative for Maximizing Student Development (IMSD), which has trained over 230 PhD and MD/PhD students since 1998 through a DEI-related federal grant. “If those grants disappear, so do opportunities for so many talented young scientists,” she said.
It’s not just students, postdoctoral researchers and early-career academics are also struggling as faculty hiring freezes spread. Cooper said one of her senior postdocs is already exploring overseas opportunities. “It’s not just a brain drain to other countries,” she warned. “It’s the loss of the scientific potential this country has built since the 1950s. Once dismantled, how long will it take to rebuild?”
Researchers warn that the effects will reach beyond academia. Federally funded research fuels the private sector, from biotech startups to pharmaceutical giants. “If graduate education stops being funded, the biomedical pipeline dries up,” said Cooper.
Arey agreed, adding that the impact would stretch far into the future. “What we do isn’t just about today’s discoveries. By training the next generation of scientists, we ensure there will be discoveries tomorrow,” she said. “Seeing that future put at risk, that’s what’s truly distressing.”
https://thenewstudent.com/jp-nadda-medical-colleges-expansion-aiims-2025/