How Analytical Chemists Are Navigating DOGE-Driven Funding Cuts

Golden sign outside the United States Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) © stockyme -chronicles-stock.adobe.com

Introduction

In 2025, the United States academic research landscape is experiencing significant upheaval due to funding reallocations initiated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Acting AdministratorAmy Gleason, with early involvement by Elon Musk until the end of May 2025. These changes have disrupted university laboratories across multiple disciplines, particularly within analytical and applied sciences.

DOGE was established by U.S. President Donald J. Trump through Executive Orders 14158 and 14222 on January 20, 2025, and revised February 26, 2025, respectively (1,2).These orders restructure the U.S. Digital Service into a new agency tasked with dramatically reducing government waste, cutting federal spending, and downsizing inefficient agencies and programs. DOGE is set up as a temporary entity, authorized to operate until July 4, 2026, unless extended or dissolved sooner by further executive action (1,2).

This article offers a summary of these impacts by drawing from both academic and government lab perspectives, incorporating insights from Karl Booksh of the University of Delaware (3) and additional commentary from a scientist at a U.S. national laboratory. Adding to these perspectives, John T. Koh, who does not speak on behalf of his institution, reports that his laboratory’s day-to-day operations have entered a “holding pattern,” as researchers delay purchases and paid facility use in hopes that official notices of award (NOAs) and no-cost extensions (NCEs) will arrive before current funds run out (4).

Scope of the Funding Reductions

Booksh reported a 60% reduction in his group’s operating funds and the loss of 85% of his expected summer salary, both attributed to DOGE-related adjustments. Although his project remains of interest to the funding agency, he was instructed to resubmit a proposal, delaying support and causing significant disruption (3).

This example reflects a broader pattern: many researchers are seeing cuts or delays in grant renewals from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and Human Services (NIH), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Energy (DOE)—agencies that have become increasingly political in their funding focus, according to Booksh (3). Notably, UC Berkeley researchers recently filed a lawsuit over grant terminations they claim were politically motivated (5). The situation gained further attention when Nature reported that NIH canceled projects on direct orders from DOGE leadership (6).

A parallel story is unfolding in Koh’s chemistry lab. “Due to uncertainty of future funding of individual labs and the University as a whole, we have significantly scaled back admissions to our graduate programs,” Koh said. “Delays in grant NOAs and NCEs have led to inefficient spending and reduced productivity caused by reduced spending to stretch existing funds until NOAs are provided” (4). As a result, Koh’s department reduced its fall 2025 graduate-cohort target by roughly 40%, and faculty are postponing instrument upgrades.

Federal Laboratory Perspective: A Different but Uncertain Trajectory

While academic labs have seen abrupt cuts, some federal laboratories report a more gradual experience—though they, too, are preparing for potential reductions. One national laboratory researcher, speaking on condition of anonymity, emphasized that impacts to date have not been “overly strong,” thanks to alignment between their lab’s mission and the priorities expressed by the new Secretary of Energy.

“The projects I work with have not suffered sudden cuts. This is likely due to a general coincidence of the areas of expertise at our lab with publicly stated priorities of the new DOE leadership,” the scientist explained.

However, uncertainty remains high. Anticipated reviews of real or perceived inefficiencies are expected to lead to budget reductions within DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) programs—possibly in the current fiscal year or during FY 26.

“We generally expect cuts to come in the near or mid-term. The level of the cuts is not yet known,” the researcher stated, noting that agency program directors must soon decide how to allocate reductions across multiple labs.

Although this type of uncertainty is common during political transitions, the scientist noted a difference in tone and process with the current administration: “In some ways this is typical of any change in administration. In other ways, it is different—due to the general chaos in governance and a dismissiveness or hostility toward programs associated with previous administrations, regardless of scientific merit.”

The lab’s internal strategy focuses on practicality andflexibility, with an emphasis on tangible deliverables rather than long-term basic research. “Our lab has a practical approach,focusing on applied science, and we look to be as flexible as possible to adjust to whatever the new reality may be.” This approach—mirroring Booksh’s adaptation in academia—highlights the growing divide in impact severity between federally operated labs and university-based research centers.

Shifting Political Priorities and the Nature of Research Funding

Booksh argued that all funding is inherently political. Investments in renewable energy or cancer research, for example, reflect federal priorities just as past emphasis on climate science or pollution prevention did, he said. Historical changes, such as the move from pollution prevention under President George H.W. Bush to climate change research under the Clinton–Gore administration, demonstrate how political philosophies influence research agendas (3).

He also points to a post-World War II (WWII) anomaly, wherein academic research became increasingly dependent on federal funds, accelerated by the Bayh–Dole Act, which redirected innovation away from industrial labs like Bell Labs toward university-driven research (7). This federal dominance in research funding, he suggested, is proving increasingly unsustainable.

Koh concurs that the long-term solution must involve a “shared-investment model.”

“The private sector needs to take a larger role in investing in basic science research in academia,” Koh said. “Academia and industry need to shift towards a model of having more collaborations in applied research that can support the workforce-development needs of the science and technology sector” (4).

Institutional Overhead and Sustainability Concerns

A central point of concern is the high indirect-cost rates (overhead) charged by research institutions for the use of facilities. Universities allocate indirect cost funds from research grants to support infrastructure and administrative services. According to Booksh, these rates can range from 67% at Yale to over 85% at institutions like the Stanford School of Veterinary Medicine and the Scripps and Salk Institutes (3). Historical investigations support this, with a well-documented 1991 Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office) (GAO) report highlighting Stanford’s controversial indirect-cost practices (8). Harvard’s current published Facilities and Administrative costs (F&A) rates further illustrate the financial structure that DOGE finds inefficient (9).

Booksh warned that the traditional startup packages for new faculty—often exceeding $750,000 to $1 million—are no longer sustainable under DOGE’s funding philosophy. With reduced overhead reimbursements, institutions may struggle to justify or recoup these investments, threatening the viability of “big-instrument,” science labs that depend on capital-intensive equipment (3).

Adaptive Strategies in the Wake of Cuts

Booksh has adapted by delaying new student recruitment and reallocating funds from a separate NSF grant to cover student salaries after DOGE-related funds were frozen. His lab has also been prioritizing industry collaboration and government lab partnerships over federal grants tied to shifting political agendas (3).

Koh described a parallel “economizing strategy” on his campus: “We are spending less—fewer supplies, fewer fee-for-service facilities work—trying to hang on to our researchers until funds are released” (4). He has shifted existing discretionary funds to retain existing talent “for as long as possible,” he said, even if it means delaying new project launches.

Morale and Career Outlook for Junior Scientists

The morale among research students has reportedly declined. Booksh’s lab includes three students considering academic careers, one of whom is applying for faculty positions amid concerns over reduced postdoctoral funding and fewer tenure-track openings. He predicts a contraction in graduate programs but noted that this may lead to higher-quality graduate training in the long term (3).

Koh echoed these concerns with sharper urgency: “Everyone—faculty, students, and staff—are under enormous stress. We do not know if we will have the funds to support our researchers in a few months. We are constantly faced with the prospect of having to let people go and telling graduate students that they will no longer be able to get a degree. If you care about your people, if you believe in your science, the stress is at times overwhelming” (4).

The Role of Advocacy and Institutional Reform

Booksh is skeptical of the role professional societies play in institutional reform, criticizing them for seeking budget increases without ensuring long-term system health. For universities themselves, he recommended reductions in administrative staff, a return to shared user facilities, and more modest campus infrastructure (3).

Koh sees an opportunity—indeed, a necessity—for a broader coalition: “We need to get industry and trade organizations to educate elected officials and the public about the critical role that academic sciences have in training the science-technology workforce. Almost half of U.S. GDP since WWII is from science and technology innovation… We must, as a community, lobby Congress not to destroy what has driven our economy for the better part of the last century” (4).

At the campus level, Koh urged institutions “that have resources” to stabilize core facilities even if research output must contract temporarily: “We acknowledge that research will likely need to be scaled back as we surrender our scientific and technological leadership to China and Europe, but we must preserve the core elements of our science and technology ecosystem that have taken over half a century to build” (4).

Conclusion

The DOGE-driven funding cuts, while disruptive, reflect deeper tensions about the sustainability, politics, and purpose of publicly funded academic research. Academic researchers like Booksh recalibrate through industry partnerships and lab efficiencies, while colleagues such as Koh brace for the possibility of payroll interruptions and a reduced pipeline of trained scientists. Government researchers, meanwhile, anticipate phased uncertainty, highlighting a bifurcation in how institutions absorb policy shifts.

As one national-lab scientist observed: “We wait, and we respond to the directors’ requests for information on our projects… and look to be as flexible as possible.”

And as John T. Koh warned: “The private sector must step up, and academia must rethink its model. Otherwise, the research enterprise that underpins our economy risks irreversible decline” (2). This dual experience across the research ecosystem underscores the need for a more resilient, transparent, and mission-aligned national research strategy, regardless of political leadership.

References

(1) The American Presidency Project Page. Executive Order 14158—Establishing and Implementing the President's Department of Government Efficiency, January 20, 2025. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14158-establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-government?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed 2025-07-01).

(2) U.S. Federal Register Page. Executive Order 14222. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-03527.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed 2025-07-01).

(3) Booksh, K. Personal communication regarding DOGE-related funding impacts; Email correspondence, May 20–21, 2025.

(4) Koh, J.T. Personal communication regarding DOGE-related funding impacts; Email correspondence, June 27, 2025. Koh emphasizes that the views expressed are his own and do not represent the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry or the University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716.

(5) SFGate. Trump Cut UC Berkeley Researchers' Funding. Their Response Is a Fierce Lawsuit. 2025. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/uc-researchers-skewer-trump-cuts-20363837.php (accessed 2025-06-26).

(6) NIH Killed Grants on Orders from Elon Musk’s DOGE. Nature 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01617-8 (accessed 2025-06-26).

(7) Enago Academy. Impact of Bayh–Dole Act on Scientific Research. n.d. https://www.enago.com/academy/impact-of-bayh-dole-act-on-scientific-research/ (accessed 2025-06-26).

(8) U.S. Government Accountability Office. Federally Sponsored Research: Indirect Costs Charged By Stanford University; Report No. T-RCED-91-18, 1991. https://www.gao.gov/products/t-rced-91-18 (accessed 2025-06-26).

(9) Harvard University Office for Sponsored Programs. F&A Rate Agreements. https://osp.finance.harvard.edu/fa-rate-agreements (accessed 2025-06-26).