Trump’s Budget May Cut Science Funding

The president’s 2018 budget request tips the scales in favor of military spending and away from civilian funding agencies, such as the NIH and NSF.

By | February 28, 2017

WWBFD?PIXABAYThe National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other federal science funding agencies may need to brace for cuts, judging by President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget request. Trump’s budgetary plan, released yesterday (February 27), proposes a 10.5 percent cut for nondefense discretionary funding, a category that includes the budgets of NIH, NSF, parts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

The main driver of those cuts seems to be Trump’s proposed increases to defense spending—the plan recommends bumping that part of the federal budget up by $54 billion—which the President highlighted in a speech announcing the budget request.

“This budget follows through on my promise to keep Americans safe,” Trump said. He continued that this plan will send a “message to the world in these dangerous times of American strength, security and resolve.”

But some science and environmental advocates are warning of the damage that Trump’s proposed budget could do. “The assault on human health begins now with President Trump’s plan to slash the EPA’s resources, which are vital to protecting Americans’ drinking water and air from pollution,” Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, told The New York Times.

The budgetary proposal still has to clear Congress, and the White House has stated that it will send a more detailed rundown of what and where it will cut in the coming months, according to Science.

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: True Scientist

True Scientist

Posts: 59

March 1, 2017

It could and it could not...  It could cut unnecessary spending and increase the vital ones. Why should we worry now? Or, I see, because “The assault on human health begins now with President Trump’s plan to slash the EPA’s resources". Resources that provide fat salaries and benefits for those involved with EPA. Their health may be assaulted by not being able to choose the finest wines and food any more, it is quite possible their bodies are not ready for this.

Avatar of: True Scientist

True Scientist

Posts: 59

March 1, 2017

It may and it may not...  It could cut unnecessary spending and increase the vital ones. Why should we worry now? Or, I see, because “The assault on human health begins now with President Trump’s plan to slash the EPA’s resources". Resources that provide fat salaries and benefits for those involved with EPA. Their health may be assaulted by not being able to choose the finest wines and food any more, it is quite possible their bodies are not ready for this.

Popular Now

  1. Thousands of Mutations Accumulate in the Human Brain Over a Lifetime
  2. Two Dozen House Republicans Do an About-Face on Tuition Tax
  3. Putative Gay Genes Identified, Questioned
    The Nutshell Putative Gay Genes Identified, Questioned

    A genomic interrogation of homosexuality turns up speculative links between genetic elements and sexual orientation, but researchers say the study is too small to be significant. 

  4. Can Young Stem Cells Make Older People Stronger?
FreeShip