Two Thousand Of America’s Top Scientists Warn Congress: Don’t Gut Research Funding

Very Large Array National Radio Astronomy Observatory, New Mexico. (Photo by Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Universal Images Group via Getty Images

In a rare display of unity, thousands of America’s most accomplished scientists have joined forces to warn Congress that proposed FY26 budget cuts would do lasting damage to the nation’s economy, health, and global standing.

The open letter, spearheaded by National Academy of Sciences member Walter Leal of the University of California, Davis, has now been signed by 2,171 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, with an additional 1,092 scientists endorsing the letter. Among the signatories are 80 Nobel laureates and 50 recipients of the National Medal of Science. It is an extraordinary roster. These are not rank-and-file academics but the very top echelon of American science, speaking with one voice.

A stark warning to Congress

The letter, delivered this month to members of the House and Senate, warns of “economic decline, weakened U.S. competitiveness, disruption of our educational system, loss of scientific talent, and threats to public health and national security” if proposed cuts to federal science budgets move forward. Its tone is deliberately bipartisan. “We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents,” it reads, stressing that the defense of American research transcends politics.

The prestige of the Academies

To grasp the weight of this mobilization, one needs to understand the role of the National Academies. Election to the NAS, NAE, or NAM is one of the highest honors an American scientist, engineer, or health professional can achieve. Membership recognizes both lifetime achievement and service to society.

Given that there are about 6.7 million scientists and engineers in the United States and roughly 1.1 million licensed physicians, the approximately 7,000 members of the National Academies represent roughly the top one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of these technical professions.

For more than half the membership of the NAS alone to sign this letter is virtually unprecedented. It is a signal that America’s scientific community sees the current moment as a turning point.

Walter Leal steps forward

The letter’s driving force is Walter Leal, a biochemist at UC Davis recognized internationally for his pioneering work on insect chemical communication. Born and educated in Brazil, with a Ph.D. earned in Japan, he later became a U.S. citizen and is today a member of the National Academy of Sciences as well as a fellow of multiple scientific societies.

In our conversation, Leal stressed that he had never engaged in political advocacy before, but felt compelled to act when the proposed cuts came to light. “This was already in place and it was being fruitful,” he said, referring to the decades-long partnership between the federal government and America’s universities. “There’s no plan B. This is the only plan that we have.”

The stakes for society

Leal offered vivid examples of what is at risk. “In this country we have been discovering new technology, new medicine, and we were going to be able to use them for a long time. But now we are going to have to pay for them, to pay other countries for knowledge,” he said. In other words, discoveries that once emerged in American laboratories could instead come from China or Europe, leaving the U.S. to pay higher costs for life-saving treatments and technologies.

And once research momentum is lost, it cannot easily be restored. “It is not like you can stop and resume…If you stop, you lose so much…It would take a long time to get back to where you were,” Leal warned. The greatest risk, he added, is to the next generation: “We would lose so many young scholars that say, ‘Well, science is not for me. These things decline. So I should go somewhere else, or maybe I should stay out of science.’”

Other voices: health and policy impacts

Elizabeth Halloran, a member of the National Academy of Medicine and professor emeritus of biostatistics at Fred Hutchison Cancer Center and the University of Washington, drew attention to the long time horizons of the problem. “Lack of funding for science will decrease the training of health professionals, including quantitative scientists, over generations,” she said, adding “This will negatively affect our ability to improve health outcomes over decades to come”.

Michael Strand, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, called the budget proposal tragic in its narrowness. “The tragedy of the recommended budget from the current administration is how narrowly it views R&D and fails to recognize the incredible diversity of basic research in particular that led to unanticipated translational applications,” he wrote to me. “This blind spot is also coupled with the argument that the private sector will fill the gap, which is patently false and naïve…It’s these disconnects that I think are so frustrating for the science community.”

A global competition

The letter also warned of international consequences, calling out competition with China in particular. “These actions threaten to weaken vital economic engines, slow innovation, endanger public health, hinder the development of young talent, and undermine our nation’s educational system,” the authors write. “Most troubling, they risk giving up America’s global leadership in science and technology to countries like China, which is not only adopting the [former] U.S. approach to federal-university partnerships but also rapidly increasing its investment in research and development.”

I asked Leal about the prospects of an American brain drain to China and Europe, where governments are capitalizing on the current disruption in America to recruit top scientists to relocate.

“My friends are telling me that’s already happening,” Leal told me. “Quietly. Some people are already making arrangements with other countries and moving there. And some students, instead of applying here, they’re applying somewhere else,” he said. He pointed to reports of lavish offers from abroad: “I already saw one famous Nobel laureate receiving an offer from China to get 20 years of uninterrupted funding,” referring to China’s attempt to recruit neuroscientist Ardem Patapoutian from Scripps Research, a nonprofit biomedical research institute based in La Jolla, California.

What happens next

Leal and his colleagues have taken extraordinary steps to ensure their message reaches lawmakers. Copies of the letter were mailed in print, delivered by certified post, and accompanied by cards linking to the full text and signatures. Videos of scientists speaking directly to key representatives are being distributed as well.

So far, the response has been strikingly muted given the eminence of the signatories. Representative Grace Meng of New York, the Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies—overseeing NSF funding—acknowledged the letter and voiced her support. Apart from that, there has been little direct engagement. At the same time, congressional action has underscored a split: the Senate has advanced a modest increase for NIH, while the House is pressing for sharp reductions.

A decision point

The fate of science funding in the FY26 budget will be decided in the coming weeks. The next federal fiscal year starts October 1. For Leal, the stakes could not be clearer. “I hope that the people in Congress, our representatives, our senators take this most seriously. This is not politics. This is America’s engine for economic growth. Government funded research benefits all of us.”

It is not currently clear whether Congress is listening to the nation’s most decorated scientists. What is clear is that how Congress acts will shape American science, and the economy, for decades to come.