Staff Writer- Emily Heins
“I planned to run my experiment this summer,” a Sophomore Biology major said. “Now I don’t know if I’ll graduate with research experience or not.”
This occurrence echoes a pattern: the National Institute of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), and other funders have slashed or delayed a large share of grants for funding in 2024 and 2025, threatening opportunities for undergraduate research.
Across Minnesota, the consequences of federal research funding cuts are starting to surface in college laboratories. At Gustavus Adolphus College, once-busy summer labs sit half-empty as fewer students can afford unpaid positions and professors scramble to stretch what grants remain. Federal actions over the last year—ranging from proposed fiscal year cuts, freezes and cancellations of awards, and administrative changes to indirect-cost rules—have created barriers to new awards and support for ongoing research.
The trend extends far beyond small liberal-arts campuses. The University of Minnesota has reported similar declines in grant availability, forcing labs to scale back hiring and equipment purchases. Meanwhile, the Mayo Clinic’s recent closure of six clinics highlights how even world-class institutions are not immune to tightening budgets. According to the state’s Department of Employment and Economic Development, scientific and technical research adds more than $18 billion to Minnesota’s economy each year—an ecosystem now under strain.
As of 2025, the Trump administration has already proposed and is actively working to slash even larger amounts of funding. According to The Washington Post and Science Magazine, in early 2025, the administration canceled more than 1,000 NIH grants for research on diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s, and HIV/AIDS. This included research on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) topics, which a federal judge later ordered to be reinstated. The National Institute of Health is the nation’s primary federal agency for medical research, funding more than 300,000 researchers across universities, hospitals, and laboratories each year. These cuts may create problems in the discovery process of vaccines, cancer therapies, genetic studies, and disease prevention programs that improve both national and global health.
According to Inside Higher Ed, the Trump administration proposed a budget for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) stating that the NSF’s budget be reduced by roughly 56%, from its $9 billion funding amount to $3.9 billion. This would involve eliminating funding for clean energy research and potentially closing the LIGO gravitational-wave observatory.
A 2025 report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) warned that the U.S. now invests barely 0.7 percent of its GDP in federally funded research—less than half the level of countries such as Germany and South Korea. “The danger is not just losing discoveries; it’s losing leadership,” the report stated. As other nations accelerate public investment in science and technology, America’s cuts risk eroding decades of progress and innovation.
However, members of Congress—specifically Patty Murray, Chris Van Hollen, Lisa Murkowski, and a vast majority of Senate Democrats—have been actively opposing these deep cuts to research, healthcare, and public media, working to retain much of the agency’s funding. Still, the NSF experienced a slowdown in awarding new grants in 2025, with a near 50% drop in funding for research projects compared to previous years.
Director of Undergraduate Research at Gustavus Adolphus College, Amanda Nienow, emphasized that the recent funding cuts threaten the foundation of scientific learning.
“Science training depends on people learning from one another. When funding dries up, we don’t just lose projects—we lose mentors, advisors, and the next generation of scientists,” Nienow said.
For undergraduates, this translates to fewer chances to gain hands-on experience and guidance from faculty—key stepping stones toward graduate school, research fellowships, and professional careers in STEM.
Junior Chemistry major Emma Johnson saw this firsthand after losing a research position when a grant renewal fell through.
“It’s not just experience—it’s confidence,” Johnson said.
Assistant Director of Research and Sponsored Programs, Meghan Fillbrandt, added that while Gustavus hasn’t yet seen major cuts, “rising research costs and shrinking opportunities could soon affect small colleges like ours.”
However, for many Gustavus professors and students, hope lies in collaboration and advocacy. “We can’t let students lose faith in research as a career,” Fillbrandt said. “Science has always been built by communities who refuse to stop asking questions.”
Whether through alumni donations, state grants, or renewed federal priorities, the call is clear: investing in discovery means investing in the future of Minnesota itself.