“The list of impacts is quite long, and it keeps growing,” says Rice University physicist Neal Lane, who notes others: restrictions on immigration, a threatened steep reduction in the overhead payments to universities that support research, and the disappearance of federal data. “It’s an attack on anything that doesn’t conform to Trump’s political agenda,”
Lane was a guest on the "Beyond Millions with Richie Rich" podcast, where he shared more on his career path and examined current challenges facing scientific leadership and public trust. The conversation saw Lane offer practical advice for aspiring scientists and policymakers, and his vision for how science can best serve society in the years ahead.
In a Washington Post op-ed, Neal Lane and Michael Riordan warn that deep cuts to the National Science Foundation under Trump threaten U.S. scientific leadership. The proposed budget slashes funding by over 50%, risking innovation, climate research, and early-career support. They urge Congress to act before long-term damage to national progress and security becomes irreversible.
The Trump administration's budget request has proposed an unprecedented 57 percent cut to the National Science Foundation that would gut U.S. science funding—slashing basic research, clean energy, and STEM education. As scientists are reeling from the proposal, former NSF director Neal Lane warns that if the budget is enacted as is, it “would spell the end of any pretense that the U.S. leads the world in science and technology,” ceding leadership to China.
The Trump administration is proposing a 29% increase in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) weapons budget, a move that comes alongside deep cuts to other science-focused agencies. While the proposed increase aims to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Lane and others argue this undercuts broader scientific progress essential for national security and highlights a central contradiction: the NNSA's nuclear modernization effort relies on cutting-edge innovation that won't be possible with continued funding cuts to research entities.