What’s at stake for higher education and research in Trump’s new budget proposal

United States President Donald Trump has unveiled his fiscal year 2027 discretionary budget request, outlining a change in federal spending priorities towards defence and security while proposing reductions across education, research and domestic programmes.

The $2.2 trillion proposal includes $1.5 trillion in military spending. This represents an increase of $445 billion, more than 40 percent above current defence spending levels. The proposal comes at a time when the US is engaged in a conflict with Iran, which is estimated to be costing over $1 billion per day.

To offset part of the increase in defence spending, the administration has proposed $73 billion in reductions to domestic programmes. This represents a 10 percent cut affecting federal agencies linked to research and education.

The budget proposal, while not binding, serves as a policy outline for the administration. Congress retains authority over final spending decisions.

Budget documents describe several domestic programmes as “woke,” “wasteful,” and “inefficient,” and state that the administration is committed to eliminating what it calls “the weaponized rot in our Federal Government once and for all.”

Cuts to research funding

The proposal outlines reductions across major research institutions.

Funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reduced by $5 billion. The plan includes eliminating multiple institutes and centres, including the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the Fogarty International Center and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health.

The administration states that “NIH broke the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.”

The National Science Foundation would face a 55 percent budget cut, reducing funding from $8.8 billion to $4 billion. The proposal also calls for ending funding for its social, behavioral and economic sciences division.
Other agencies facing cuts include:

• The Advanced Research Projects for Health, reduced from $1.5 billion to $945 million
• The United States Geological Survey ecosystems mission area, proposed for elimination
• The National Endowment for the Humanities, recommended for elimination
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, set to lose $1.6 billion in education and climate research grants
• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, facing a $5.6 billion reduction
• The Environmental Protection Agency, proposed to be cut by over $6 billion

Proposed changes to education funding

The budget outlines a 2.9 percent reduction for the United States Department of Education and places it on what the administration describes as a “path to elimination.”

A total of $8.5 billion in K-12 funding would be cut or consolidated into block grants. These would be distributed to states under a $2 billion “Make Education Great Again” programme, allowing states more control over spending decisions.

For higher education, proposed cuts total $2.7 billion. These include:

• A $354 million reduction for Minority Serving Institutions
• A $136 million cut to the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
• Elimination of $81 million for International and Foreign Language Education
• A reduction of over $500 million for the Institute of Education Sciences
• Elimination of funding for TRIO programmes, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs and Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need

The proposal also reduces federal contributions to the Federal Work Study programme by about 90 percent, requiring employers to cover a larger share of student wages.

One area of increase is the Pell Grant programme. The proposal includes a $10.5 billion increase, raising total funding to $33 billion and setting the maximum award at $7,395 for the 2027-28 academic year.

Political and institutional reactions

Reactions to the proposal have been divided.

Senator Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, described the proposal as “truly historic,” stating that “it is more than justified by the threats we face throughout the world.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats “will make sure it never passes.”

Senator Patty Murray, vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, stated that “the vision President Trump has outlined for America in his budget is bleak and unacceptable,” adding that “President Trump wants to slash medical research to fund costly foreign wars.”

The Association of American Universities urged Congress to “reject these short-sighted cuts and increase investments in America’s scientific enterprise,” Forbes reports.

Concerns over deficit and long-term impact

The proposal is expected to increase the federal deficit beyond the projected $1.9 trillion for fiscal year 2026, adding to the national debt, which currently exceeds $39 trillion.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities criticised the proposal, stating it uses “implausible assumptions to make its numbers look better than they are likely to be” and “provides no roadmap for seizing opportunities or addressing our challenges.”

The Cato Institute also raised concerns, stating that “the presidential budget is supposed to be the administration’s opportunity to explain to the American people how it would put our budget back on track,” adding that the proposal “includes no comprehensive 10-year fiscal plan.”

The budget proposal outlines the administration’s priorities but requires approval from Congress, which is responsible for federal spending decisions. Past proposals of similar scale have faced resistance.

The outcome will depend on negotiations in the months ahead. In the meantime, the proposal provides an early indication of how federal funding for education, research and social programmes could change in the coming years.

Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!