The deep and lasting implications of funding cuts for psychological research 

Federal funding has long been the backbone of psychological research in the United States, supporting a wide array of studies from cognitive neuroscience to mental health interventions. Yet, due to the fact that it’s considered “discretionary,” it’s often put on the chopping block in the face of budget considerations. And in 2025, targeted cuts to programs such as those at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have intensified the challenges researchers face in competing globally to advance psychological research. 

At the American Psychological Foundation (APF), we’re engaging in ongoing conversations with researchers and organizations who have lost federal funding. I see the major impacts of these funding cuts as follows: 

Direct impacts: Disruptions to research and scientific integrity 

The immediate effects of funding cuts are evident in the disruption of ongoing studies we’ve seen across scientific research fields. Many research projects have been paused or canceled, leading to wasted resources and incomplete data. This not only hampers scientific progress but also undermines the reliability of findings that inform clinical practices and policy decisions. 

For example, APF is in contact with a researcher whose funding—for studies focused on a racial disparity in dire health outcomes and spanning years of careful cultivation and data collection—was canceled with no warning. Without funding, the researcher will lose access to the participants, which will render all of the data already gathered useless. 

The ROI on federal funding for innovative research can be as high as $5 for every $1 spent. This is especially true for the field of psychology, in which basic research is less likely to be supported by private donors. Cancellation of grants, shifting priorities, and increased competition for funding can stifle creativity and limit the scope of psychological research. The long-lasting impact of these limitations has potentially dire implications for our ability to address emerging issues, given that the most effective psychotherapeutic treatments for anxiety, depression, and suicide were developed out of federally funded studies. 

Moreover, the emphasis on “efficiency” in grantmaking prioritizes grants that support positive results, even though they’re no more of an indication of good science than negative results. There has always been discussion around concerns that a focus on obtaining positive results to meet funding criteria may amplify publication biases, where studies with null or negative outcomes are less likely to be published. This selective reporting can distort the scientific record and impede the development of effective interventions. 

Indirect impacts: Talent drain and global competitiveness 

Beyond immediate research disruptions, funding cuts have broader implications for the psychological research community. Financial instability has led to hiring freezes, reduced graduate admissions, and fewer postdoctoral and research assistant positions. These changes can deter students and early-career researchers from entering the field, leading to a loss of talent and diversity. Much of this impact will fall on mid-tier and state universities that lack the massive endowments of their wealthier counterparts. 

Furthermore, reduced investment in psychological research may diminish the leadership position of the U.S. in science and innovation. As other countries continue to invest in research and development, including supporting U.S. scientists, we risk falling behind in producing groundbreaking insights and interventions.  

Long-term consequences: A narrowing research landscape

If current funding trends persist, the long-term effects on psychological research could be profound. With the U.S. no longer supporting cutting-edge researchers, the decline in early-stage research will limit progress in the understanding of human behavior and mental health on a global scale. This could hinder the development of effective interventions and limit the field’s ability to address complex societal challenges. 

While some researchers are exploring alternative funding models and interdisciplinary collaborations, these efforts cannot fully compensate for the systemic reduction in federal support. There is simply not enough money in the private sector to replace federal funding. Without a robust investment in psychological research, the field may struggle to keep pace with evolving needs. 

Funder responses: Adapting to meet urgent needs for psychological research 

In response to these funding challenges, some philanthropic organizations have increased their programming expenditures, which can include support for psychological research. For instance, we’ve seen certain foundations expand their unrestricted grantmaking by as much as 150% to help fill the gap left by federal funding cuts. Others have established rapid/emergency response funds to close out projects responsibly or help researchers maintain continuity until new funding becomes available. 

These initiatives demonstrate a growing awareness of the crisis and a willingness to act adaptively, including shifting priorities and collaborating with other funders. However, they also highlight the extraordinary pressure the nonprofit and academic sectors are under to sustain critical research. 

Federal funding cuts are reshaping the field in ways that may not always be immediately visible but have significant long-term implications. As the funding landscape continues to evolve, the choices being made today will have a defining impact on the advancement of psychological science and innovation. 

Photo credit: PeopleImages via Getty Images