
Math Is Quietly in Crisis over NSF Funding Cuts
But under the Trump administration's National Science Foundation, much of this funding is being revoked or cut—which, according to experts, could be catastrophic for the present and future of the field. In one recent example, the NSF canceled funding for the Association for Women in Mathematics' research symposium in Wisconsin just four business days before the event was set to begin in May. The threat to this event catalyzed the American Mathematical Society to offer $1 million in backstop grants to support programs whose federal funding has been cut or remains in limbo. These grants are meant to provide a financial safety net that will temporarily allow math programs, researchers and departments to continue operating—but it's not a permanent solution. (Disclosure: The author of this article currently has a AAAS Mass Media Fellowship at Scientific American that is sponsored by the American Mathematical Society.)
'The funding cut is severe, and all of mathematics will be impacted,' says Raegan Higgins, president of the Association for Women in Mathematics and a mathematician at Texas Tech University.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Movies and television shows often portray mathematicians scribbling on chalkboards in seclusion, but that picture is often far from accurate. 'None of us work in isolation,' Higgins says. In fact, mathematicians rely heavily on their ability to gather and discuss ideas with their peers—perhaps even more than researchers in other fields do. For mathematicians, conferences, workshops and research talks are not just opportunities to share research and network but also crucial moments to work out tough problems together with colleagues, pose field-propelling questions and generate new ideas.
'It's a thinking science, [and] it's a communication science, so we rely on being together to share ideas and to move the needle forward,' says Darla Kremer, executive director of the Association for Women in Mathematics. According to John Meier, CEO of the American Mathematical Society, 'the ability of mathematicians to gather and talk with each other is absolutely central to the vitality of the field.'
Federal dollars, largely through the NSF, are responsible for a significant portion of math funding. But a lot of that funding is disappearing under the Trump administration. In April NSF staff members were instructed to 'stop awarding all funding actions until further notice.' Over the past 10 years, on average, the NSF has awarded $113 million in grants to mathematics by May 21 of each year. This year the NSF has awarded only $32 million, representing a 72 percent reduction. By this metric, mathematics is one of the most deeply affected subjects, second only to physics, which has seen an 85 percent reduction.
The administration is also canceling and freezing funding that it had previously promised to researchers. More than $14 million of funding already promised to mathematics programs was revoked earlier this year, according to an analysis by Scientific American. In response to a request for comment, the National Science Foundation told Scientific American that 'the agency has determined that termination of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals.'
This withdrawal of grants is eroding trust and seeding uncertainty, experts say, and it comes with long-term consequences. Even if funding gets renewed again later, it can be very difficult for halted programs to recover. 'If you have to shut down a lab and mothball it, that actually takes time and effort,' Meier says. 'You can't just walk in two weeks later, flip a switch and have everything running again. You've got to rebuild it.' Even in mathematics, that process of rebuilding is time-intensive and not always possible if the space has been reallocated or the people have moved on.
American Mathematical Society leadership fears these cuts will hurt young mathematicians the most. Like in the sciences, the funding cuts are eliminating research experiences and supportive programming for undergraduates, fellowships for graduate students and positions for postdoctoral researchers. Travel funding for conferences is also disappearing, which leaves young researchers to choose between shelling out for airfare and lodging they can't really afford and forgoing major career and research building opportunities. As these opportunities disappear, young mathematicians are beginning to look elsewhere—either to more lucrative jobs in the private sector or to more supportive countries. 'We worry about diminishing opportunities in the United States and people early in their career deciding that maybe there's a more profitable venue for them to pursue mathematics in another country,' Meier says. 'We love good mathematics wherever it arises, but we'd really like to see a lot of it arising in the United States. We think that's very, very important.'
The $1 million in backstop grants can't fill the hole left by the more than $14 million in promised funding that has been denied or the more than $80 million in reduced funding so far this year. But it might be enough to keep many projects afloat simply by offering guaranteed access to funds in a turbulent time. 'I think one of the great difficulties that we're dealing with right now is the high level of uncertainty,' Meier says. Some mathematicians, for example, simply don't know whether their projects are still being funded or not. In some applications for the backstop grants, researchers 'basically talk about being ghosted,' Meier explains. 'They say, 'I can't actually verify that we no longer have funding. I can only tell you my program officer [at the NSF] isn't replying to my request for information.''
Meier hopes the grants can provide some backup for programs that aren't sure where they stand with the NSF. Without it, researchers, universities and independent organizations may find themselves facing impossible situations. Do they pay their research assistants, run their conferences and continue to fund travel out of pocket, assuming all the financial risk themselves and hoping the grants come through? Or do they halt their projects, losing valuable momentum and perhaps leaving important stakeholders unpaid for their work?
Still, the backstop grants are a one-time offering—not a sustainable source of funding for an imperiled field. 'I really view them as trying to take a little bit of the sharp edges off of the sudden loss of funding, as opposed to anything that could sustain the field long-term,' Meier explains.
The effects of the Trump administration's cuts to mathematics research—unlike research on, say, Alzheimer's disease, vaccines or climate change —may not be the most immediately concerning to human health and safety. But experts like Meier say that ignoring the role mathematics plays in that development is shortsighted. As a spokesperson of the NSF itself put it in response to an inquiry about the organization's changing priorities (and as the agency has said on its website), 'Mathematical sciences are crucial to everyday society and play an essential role in the innovation engine that drives the U.S. economy, strengthens national security and enhances quality of life.' And the search for the answers to math's biggest mysteries also seeds development in physics, earth science, biology, technology, and more.
Any progress we make on these questions in the future, Meier says, is 'based entirely [on what] we are doing in research mathematics right now.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
11 hours ago
- The Hill
Without weather forecasters, our canaries in the storm, expect disaster
Before modern forecasting, hurricanes were mass casualty events. The 1900 Galveston Hurricane killed over 8,000 people, wiping out an entire city with a 15-foot storm surge. Less than a century ago, Hurricane Okeechobee killed over 2,500 Floridians in a tragedy that today would be largely preventable. We've come a long way since the days when hurricanes struck without warning. I know, because I helped develop the systems that save countless lives and give communities time to prepare. That was my job until February, when I was terminated by President Trump and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency alongside hundreds of other scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Since then, I have continued my work in hurricane forecasting through Cooperative Institute research; however, the cuts left deep holes across NOAA's forecasting teams that've not been filled. This purge isn't 'cutting waste' — it is dismantling America's hurricane monitoring systems. At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, I worked on the next-generation Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System. This system enabled emergency managers to issue timely evacuation orders during life-threatening hurricanes like Helene and Milton, helping prevent thousands of potential fatalities. Yet even with cutting-edge forecasting, Helene revealed new, urgent challenges. In the last decade, freshwater flooding surpassed storm surge as the leading cause of hurricane-related deaths. Helene's victims were coastal residents and mountain communities, caught unprepared by catastrophic inland flooding. Dozens more died — victims of power outages, delayed medical care and collapsed infrastructure in the days after the storm passed. If our warning systems don't evolve to keep pace with rapidly changing storms, Helene's damage may seem merciful compared to future disasters. Precisely when adaptation is most urgent, political decisions have systematically dismantled our protective infrastructure. Key vacancies remain across NOAA's local forecast offices, satellite operations and modeling teams — many of which are already stretched thin this hurricane season. Without continuous investment in modeling and surveillance, hurricane season, which officially began June 1, will become even deadlier and harder to predict. DOGE's decimation of the forecasting workforce unravels a century of progress in hurricane survival rates. While the full impact of these cuts won't be seen overnight, the damage will compound the longer these positions go unfilled. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration isn't just a research agency; it's America's first line of defense against natural disasters. Forecasting is the foundation of all response efforts. While scientists aren't knocking doors with evacuation orders ourselves, we're the ones telling first responders when, if, and whose doors they should knock on. When NOAA functions at full capacity, emergency managers have the tools they need to prepare their communities. NOAA's remaining scientists and National Weather Service forecasters will give their all this hurricane season to deliver the most accurate forecasts possible, but dedication can't make up for a system that's been hollowed out, and grit can only hold together this critical system for so long. Privatizing these forecasting services creates a dangerous 'pay-to-play' model for life-saving information. This approach wouldn't just create barriers for low-income families; it would hamstring small municipalities and volunteer emergency services trying to protect their communities. The private sector cannot fill this void. The National Weather Service processes over 6 billion observations daily and issues approximately 1.5 million forecasts and 50,000 warnings annually. No private entity possesses infrastructure that can match this scale and reliability. There is a better path forward. By recommitting to public science and restoring forecasters' positions, we can build systems that adapt to changing storms, accurately track flood zones and storm paths, and provide both inland and coastal communities with the advanced warning they need to stay safe. We owe this to every family who will face the next Helene or Milton. Congress must act urgently to restore NOAA's full operational capacity and reject all efforts to privatize these essential services. The FY26 federal budget proposes a $1.3 billion cut to NOAA's core operations, such as satellite programs essential to forecasting, programs supporting climate modeling and even public education. NOAA can't issue life-saving warnings if its data stream has gone dark. And the research that drives improvements in modeling and forecasting is threatened if some of the budget proposals come to fruition. There have been some positive developments from Congress. The House Republicans' fiscal 2026 Commerce-Justice-Science spending bill, announced on Monday, proposes a much-smaller cut of $387 million, bringing the NOAA budget to $5.8 billion. While it's a modest improvement, it still does not fully cover the financial needs of an agency tasked with protecting hundreds of millions of Americans. Hurricane forecasting shouldn't be treated like a luxury or a political football. It's public infrastructure that's as essential as our power grids or water systems. Storm surges don't check voter registrations before flooding homes, and hurricanes won't stop based on who occupies the White House. Without urgent action in this year's budget, we risk turning the worst-case scenario into reality. The question isn't whether the storms are coming. It's whether we'll be ready when they do.


The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Top Republican on House China panel questions reversal of Nvidia chip curbs
Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, is pushing back on the Trump administration's decision to allow technology company Nvidia to sell certain artificial intelligence (AI) chips to China once again. In a letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Friday, the congressman raised concerns about the reversal on Nvidia's H20 chips, suggesting it could boost China's AI capabilities. 'The H20, which is a cost-effective and powerful AI inference chip, far surpasses China's indigenous capability and would therefore provide a substantial increase to China's AI development,' Moolenaar wrote. Nvidia announced Monday that the chipmaker is filing out applications to sell its H20 chips again after receiving assurances from the Trump administration that its licenses would be granted. The chipmaker revealed earlier this year that the U.S. government was implementing new licensing requirements that would limit its ability to sell the chips in China. The reversal came shortly after Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang met with President Trump. Lutnick suggested the Trump administration opted to ease the restrictions as part of a broader rare earth deal with China, underscoring that Beijing is only getting Nvidia's 'fourth best' chip. However, Moolenaar argued the key issue is how the H20 chip compares to those being developed in China and proposed the Commerce Department peg its export controls to a 'slight technical improvement' on China's current capabilities. 'As the Trump administration has repeatedly stated, the U.S. must ensure that American rather than Chinese tech companies build the global AI infrastructure,' he added. 'At the same time, however, we must also ensure that the world does not adopt Chinese AI models trained on U.S. technology.' 'Approving the sale of large volumes of H20s could give China the computer power it needs to develop powerful AI models that are open to users free of charge as DeepSeek has done with R1,' Moolenaar continued. 'As China has done in so many other industries, this is a deliberate strategy to capture market share and become the global standard.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
CBS News poll: Most Americans favor U.S. returning to moon, going to Mars
There is a lot of public favor for the idea of the U.S. returning to the moon, and also for eventually going to Mars. About two-thirds do, while a third does not. Younger Americans who are not old enough to remember the first moon landing are especially in favor, perhaps looking forward to seeing that exploration in their lifetimes. These views generally cut across ideological and party lines, as well. The first moon landing in 1969 continues to loom large in the public mind, all these years on — a big majority says it was worth doing, while just under a quarter says it was not. Views were comparable back when this was asked at the 40th and 50th anniversaries of it, too. That may be partly because, in general, Americans tend to think the space program adds at least somewhat to feelings of national pride. People tend to think it also contributes some — if not necessarily a lot — to technological contributions from which everyone can benefit. This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,404 U.S. adults interviewed between June 18-23, 2025. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.6 points. Toplines Wall Street Journal reports Trump sent "bawdy" birthday letter to Epstein, Trump threatens to sue Medical expert on Trump's chronic venous insufficiency diagnosis President Trump sues WSJ publisher, Rupert Murdoch over Epstein letter story Solve the daily Crossword