DOGE's Structural Shock: Analyzing the Fiscal and Legal Mechanisms of the 2025 Cuts

Abstract

The establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in January 2025 initiated the most significant restructuring of the United States federal scientific apparatus since the post-World War II era. Led by private sector magnates Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, DOGE was tasked with a mandate to reduce federal expenditure by trillions of dollars and dismantle the administrative state.¹ This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the effects of these cuts on U.S. science agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Through a comparative historical lens, we contrast DOGE’s operational strategy with the Reagan-era Grace Commission, arguing that DOGE represented a fundamental shift from managerial auditing to ideological targeting. We further explore the specific cancellation of grant programs, the legal mechanisms of impoundment used to bypass Congressional appropriations, and the long-term geopolitical consequences of the resulting "brain drain." The analysis suggests that while the initiative achieved short-term fiscal reductions, it likely compromised the nation's long-term strategic capacity in climate monitoring, energy innovation, and biomedical research.

1. Introduction: The New Paradigm of Federal Science

For over seven decades, the United States maintained a bipartisan consensus regarding the federal government's role in scientific research. Rooted in Vannevar Bush's 1945 report Science, The Endless Frontier, this consensus held that basic research was a public good that the market would not fund due to its high risk and long time horizons. Agencies such as the NSF and NIH were designed to operate with a degree of insulation from political vacillation, guided by peer review and meritocracy.

The inauguration of the second Trump administration and the subsequent creation of DOGE shattered this consensus. The new administration viewed the federal scientific ecosystem not as an engine of innovation, but as a bloated repository of "Deep State" bureaucracy, ideological drift, and economic inefficiency.³ The efficiency mandate was absolute: agencies were required to justify their existence not merely by their scientific output, but by their alignment with a new set of executive priorities that emphasized deregulation, immediate economic return, and the excision of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

By mid-2025, the landscape of American science had been radically altered. Billions of dollars in previously awarded grants were cancelled or frozen. Thousands of federal scientists were displaced through mass layoffs and forced relocations.⁵ Critical data archives related to climate change were taken offline.⁶ The swiftness and severity of these actions raised a fundamental question: Did DOGE take an overly aggressive stance, or was this a necessary correction to a system that had lost its way? To answer this, we must first understand the historical and strategic context of the DOGE initiative.

2. Comparative Strategy: The Grace Commission vs. DOGE

To evaluate the aggressiveness of DOGE, it is instructive to compare it with the most prominent historical precedent for federal cost-cutting: the Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, established by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and popularly known as the Grace Commission.

2.1 The Grace Commission: Managerial Reform

The Grace Commission, led by industrialist J. Peter Grace, was staffed by over 150 corporate leaders and tasked with bringing business-like efficiency to the federal government.⁷ The Commission produced 2,478 recommendations, identifying potential savings of $424 billion over three years (unadjusted for inflation).⁸ Its focus was primarily managerial and systemic: it targeted inefficiencies in procurement, redundant management structures, and obsolete information systems.

Crucially, the Grace Commission operated within the traditional bounds of the separation of powers. Its recommendations were advisory. To implement them, President Reagan had to work with Congress to pass legislation. This process was slow, deliberative, and subject to the checks and balances of democratic governance. Consequently, many of the most radical proposals were filtered out or diluted during the legislative process.⁷ The Grace Commission viewed the government as a fixable machine; its goal was to make the machine run smoother.

2.2 DOGE: Structural Deconstruction

In contrast, the Department of Government Efficiency operated with a mandate of structural deconstruction. The strategy employed by Musk and Ramaswamy differed from the Grace Commission in three critical dimensions: velocity, authority, and ideology.

Velocity and Unilateralism: Unlike the years-long study period of the Grace Commission, DOGE operated in real-time. Utilizing a "USDS" (U.S. DOGE Service) unit embedded directly within agencies, DOGE identified and executed cuts within days of the inauguration.² The directive was not to propose savings for future budget cycles, but to halt spending immediately. This was achieved through "impoundment"—the refusal to spend money already appropriated by Congress—a tactic that bypassed the legislative branch entirely.⁹

Authority and the "Outsider" Executive: While J. Peter Grace was an external advisor, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy occupied a nebulous but powerful role. Though officially outside the government to avoid certain regulatory disclosures, they were empowered by executive order to direct agency heads.¹⁰ This blurred the lines of accountability. Musk, whose companies (SpaceX, Tesla) were major federal contractors, had a direct conflict of interest in agencies like NASA and the DOE, yet he wielded de facto authority over their budgets.¹¹

Ideological Targeting: The Grace Commission’s audit was largely financial. DOGE’s audit was explicitly political. The definition of "waste" was expanded to include any program deemed "woke" or ideologically misaligned with the administration. "Inefficiency" became a synonym for "disagreement." For instance, grants were cancelled not because the research was scientifically flawed, but because they contained keywords like "diversity," "climate justice," or "misinformation".¹²

Table 1: Strategic Comparison of Federal Efficiency Initiatives

Feature	Grace Commission (1982)	DOGE (2025)
Leadership	J. Peter Grace (Industrialist)	Elon Musk / Vivek Ramaswamy (Tech Entrepreneurs)
Primary Goal	Managerial Efficiency / Waste Reduction	Structural Reduction / Ideological Realignment
Mechanism	Advisory Reports to Congress	Executive Orders / Impoundment / Grant Cancellation
Timeframe	Multi-year study	Immediate ("Day One") execution
Impact on Science	Peripheral (procurement focus)	Direct (cancellation of specific scientific domains)
Legislative Role	Required Congressional approval	Bypassed via loophole utilization

3. The Legal Battlefield: Weaponizing the Purse

The aggressiveness of the DOGE cuts was made possible by a novel and aggressive interpretation of federal budget law, specifically the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA).

3.1 The Mechanics of Impoundment

The ICA was originally passed to prevent the President from unilaterally withholding funds appropriated by Congress. It requires the executive branch to spend authorized funds unless Congress approves a specific "rescission" request within 45 days. The Trump administration, guided by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought, utilized a loophole known as the "pocket rescission."

By proposing rescissions late in the fiscal year (near the September 30 deadline), the administration could freeze funds for the mandatory 45-day review period. If Congress did not act—or if the review period extended beyond the end of the fiscal year—the funds would expire before they could be legally obligated, effectively cancelling the appropriation without Congressional consent.⁹ This tactic was deployed with devastating effect. In the foreign aid sector, it froze billions in USAID funding.¹⁴ In the scientific sector, it was used to "pause" grants at the EPA, NSF, and DOE under the guise of financial review.

3.2 Judicial Challenges and the Shadow Docket

The courts became the primary theater of resistance. In cases such as AVAC v. Department of State, plaintiffs argued that the administration was violating the constitutional requirement that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," which includes spending money as Congress directs.¹⁵

While lower courts, such as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, initially issued injunctions requiring the administration to obligate the funds, the Supreme Court often intervened via the "shadow docket"—emergency rulings made without full briefing or oral argument. In September 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay that allowed the administration to continue withholding $4 billion in foreign assistance funds just days before they were set to expire.¹⁶ Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting, warned that this ruling gave the administration a "free pass" to disregard the power of the purse.

This legal precedent emboldened DOGE to apply similar freezes to domestic science agencies. The administration argued that the executive branch had discretion over how to spend funds, and that pausing spending to review for "waste" was within its authority.¹⁷ This created a chilling effect; even if funds were eventually released, the uncertainty caused universities to halt hiring and construction, effectively pausing scientific progress for a year or more.

4. Department of Energy: Deconstructing the Green Transition

The Department of Energy (DOE) stood at the epicenter of the administration's ideological pivot. Under the guidance of DOGE, the DOE underwent a radical realignment, moving away from renewable energy and climate mitigation toward a retrenchment of fossil fuel support and a narrowing of basic science.

4.1 The End of National Hydrogen Hubs

One of the signature initiatives of the previous administration was the development of "Hydrogen Hubs"—regional networks designed to jumpstart the green hydrogen economy. Hydrogen can be produced in various ways: "Green" hydrogen is produced by splitting water molecules using renewable electricity (electrolysis), while "Blue" hydrogen is produced from natural gas with carbon capture.

In October 2025, the DOE announced the termination of 321 financial awards, claiming savings of approximately $7.56 billion.¹⁸ Among the highest-profile casualties were the hydrogen hub projects. Specifically, the Hy Stor Energy project in Mississippi, which aimed for over 1 GW of electrolyzer capacity to produce green hydrogen, was cancelled.¹⁹ The cancellations also targeted the Pacific Northwest and California hubs, which focused exclusively on renewable hydrogen.²⁰

The rationale provided by Energy Secretary Chris Wright was that these projects "did not adequately advance the nation's energy needs" and were not "economically viable".¹⁸ However, analysts noted that the criteria for viability had been altered. By removing the "social cost of carbon" from the cost-benefit analysis, green technologies—which are currently more expensive than fossil alternatives but offer long-term climate benefits—appeared fiscally inefficient. This decision effectively pulled the plug on the nascent U.S. green hydrogen industry, stranding billions in private capital that had been committed alongside the federal grants.

4.2 The Gutting of ARPA-E and EERE

The cuts extended deep into the Office of Science and applied research divisions. The fiscal year 2025 budget request cut the Office of Science by nearly 14%.²¹ The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), modeled after DARPA to fund high-risk, high-reward energy technologies, faced a 56% budget cut. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) saw a drastic 74% reduction.²¹

These agencies had been instrumental in developing advanced battery chemistries, grid modernization technologies, and building efficiency standards. The cancellation of grants for companies like Schneider Electric and Tesla, which were building manufacturing facilities in Tennessee and Texas, demonstrated that the cuts were not merely abstract budget adjustments but direct hits to American manufacturing capability.²² The Sierra Club noted that these cancellations disproportionately affected "nascent industries" that rely on federal validation to attract private capital.²³

5. The Environmental Protection Agency: Erasure of Regulatory Science

If the DOE faced a strategic realignment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faced an existential dismantling. The DOGE strategy for the EPA was to reduce the agency's regulatory footprint by removing the scientific data that justified it.

5.1 The War on Data: Archival Deletion

In a move that alarmed historians and climatologists, the administration took aggressive steps to remove climate data from public access. In May 2025, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—often working in concert with EPA on climate data—announced it would no longer update its "Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters" database.⁶ This database was a critical tool for insurers, city planners, and engineers to quantify the rising economic toll of extreme weather. Its removal was justified as "alignment with evolving priorities," but critics viewed it as an attempt to hide the economic evidence of climate change.²⁵

Simultaneously, the EPA shuttered its online archive, removing access to tens of thousands of historical documents and web resources.²⁶ This was more than a digital cleanup; it was a deletion of institutional memory. The "National Climate Assessment," a congressionally mandated report involving hundreds of scientists, saw its past editions removed from federal servers, and the 400 experts working on the next iteration were dismissed.²⁷ This "data blinding" meant that future policy decisions would be made in a vacuum, without the historical context of environmental degradation.

5.2 Toxicology and the Termination of Safety Research

Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, the EPA cancelled over 400 grants totaling nearly $2 billion.²⁸ The selection criteria were often explicitly ideological. Grants related to "environmental justice"—the study of how pollution disproportionately affects marginalized communities—were the first to be terminated. A $50 million grant to the Climate Justice Alliance was cancelled with the justification that the group held political views contrary to the administration.²⁸

However, the cuts also targeted technical, non-partisan research. At Texas A&M University, a toxicology research team led by Ivan Rusyn and Weihsueh Chiu saw their EPA grant cancelled.²⁹ Their work focused on developing non-animal testing methods for chemical safety—a goal ostensibly shared by both political parties to reduce animal testing. The cancellation of such research suggested that the "efficiency" dragnet was catching any project associated with regulation, regardless of its scientific merit. Without the toxicology data produced by these grants, the EPA could not legally justify new regulations on chemicals, effectively achieving deregulation through the starvation of science.

6. NASA: The Blind Eye to the Planet

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has long balanced a dual mandate: looking outward to the stars and looking inward to Earth. The DOGE strategy heavily favored the former at the expense of the latter, viewing Earth Science as a politicized domain of "climate alarmism."

6.1 The Cancellation of Earth Observatories

The fiscal year 2026 budget proposal for NASA outlined a 53% cut to the Earth Science division.³⁰ This was described by planetary scientists as an "extinction-level event" for the field. The most significant losses were the cancellations of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory missions (OCO-2 and OCO-3) and the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) mission.³¹

The OCO satellites provided the "gold standard" for measuring global carbon dioxide flows. Utilizing high-resolution spectroscopy, these instruments measured the intensity of sunlight reflected off the Earth in specific bands where carbon dioxide absorbs light. This allowed scientists to distinguish between natural carbon cycles (such as forests absorbing CO2) and anthropogenic emissions.³² By cancelling these missions—some of which were already in orbit and operational—the administration actively blinded the scientific community to the mechanics of climate change. The decision to "deorbit" (burn up) functioning satellites like OCO-2 and the Juno spacecraft orbiting Jupiter was particularly controversial.³³ It contradicted the "efficiency" mandate; destroying a paid-for, functioning asset is fiscally wasteful, suggesting the motive was to stop the flow of data rather than to save money.

6.2 Mars vs. Earth

While Earth Science was gutted, the budget maintained or even increased funding for "exploration" missions that aligned with the private ambitions of DOGE leadership. Mars exploration received continued support, and the budget emphasized partnerships with commercial space providers.³⁶ This pivot reflected a broader philosophy: science as a frontier for colonization and resource extraction (Mars, Moon) was valuable; science as a monitor of planetary health (Earth) was an impediment to economic growth.

However, the cancellation of the Mars Sample Return mission—a complex, multi-billion dollar effort to bring Martian soil back to Earth—demonstrated that even planetary science was not immune if the costs were deemed too high.³⁷ This nuance indicates that while ideology drove the Earth Science cuts, pure fiscal hawkishness did play a role in other areas, leading to a incoherent strategy where even "favored" domains suffered from the chaotic implementation of cuts.

Table 2: Key NASA Mission Cancellations and Status

Mission	Primary Science Goal	Status	Impact
OCO-2 / OCO-3	Measure global CO2 sources and sinks	Cancelled / Deorbited	Loss of ability to verify carbon emission treaties.
PACE	Monitor ocean health and aerosols	Cancelled	Gaps in understanding ocean-climate interactions.
Juno	Study Jupiter’s origin and magnetosphere	Deorbited (Proposed)	End of data from the solar system's largest planet.
Mars Sample Return	Retrieve Martian soil for life signs	Cancelled	Loss of sunk costs; delay in search for extraterrestrial life.
Aura	Monitor ozone and air quality	Cancelled	reduced ability to track ozone layer recovery.

7. NSF and NIH: The Ideological Filter

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) form the backbone of American academic research. DOGE’s intervention in these agencies was characterized by a targeted purge of grants based on keywords related to diversity and social equity.

7.1 The "Woke" Purge and the INCLUDES Initiative

In 2025, over 3,800 research grants from the NIH and NSF were terminated or frozen.³⁸ A significant portion of these cancellations targeted the NSF's "INCLUDES" initiative, a comprehensive program designed to broaden participation in STEM fields among underrepresented groups. The largest terminated grant within NSF was a $9 million award supporting the coordination hub of this initiative.³⁸

The administration justified these cuts by claiming that such programs did not "effectuate agency priorities." A memo from the administration directed agencies to scrutinize grants for terms like "diversity," "equity," and "misinformation".¹² This transformed the grant review process from a merit-based scientific evaluation into a political purity test. The cancellation of misinformation research was particularly ironic, as it removed the tools necessary to understand the spread of false information in an era of digital volatility.¹²

7.2 The Impact on Medical Research

The freeze on funding had immediate consequences for biomedical research. At Northwestern University, the Lurie Cancer Center saw $77 million in NIH grants frozen.³⁸ This freeze did not just stop the purchase of equipment; it halted the salaries of post-docs, lab technicians, and graduate students who are paid via these grants. Northwestern was forced to lay off 363 staff members to cope with the $140 million budget shortfall caused by the federal freeze.³⁹

This creates a ripple effect throughout the biomedical ecosystem. Clinical trials, which rely on consistent monitoring and treatment of patients, cannot be simply "paused" and restarted months later. A gap in funding often means the loss of patient cohorts and the invalidation of years of data. The uncertainty introduced by DOGE essentially broke the contract between the federal government and research universities, forcing institutions to hoard cash and freeze hiring rather than invest in new cures.

8. The Human Cost: Layoffs and the Great Brain Drain

Beyond the specific programs and satellites, the most enduring impact of the DOGE cuts was on the human capital of American science. The federal scientific workforce, comprising hundreds of thousands of experts, faced an unprecedented reduction.

8.1 The Mechanics of Mass Layoffs

The administration utilized a variety of tools to reduce the workforce. "Schedule F," an executive order reclassifying civil servants as political appointees, stripped tens of thousands of scientists of their tenure protections, making them easy to fire without cause.⁴⁰ By mid-2025, over 300,000 federal workers had been laid off or forced out.⁵

DOGE also employed "soft" layoff tactics. The "Fork in the Road" directive required federal employees to return to the office full-time and accept new, more rigorous performance standards or resign with severance.⁴¹ For scientists who had moved to remote work or whose labs were decentralized, this was a de facto termination. In agencies like the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the termination of General Services Administration (GSA) leases for research centers forced scientists to relocate or quit, disrupting long-term studies on water quality and seismic activity.⁴²

8.2 The "Reverse Brain Drain" to China

The hostility toward federal science created a powerful "push" factor that rival nations were eager to exploit. Reports from Nature indicated a surge in U.S.-based scientists applying for positions in Canada, Europe, and China.⁴³ The "China Initiative" of previous years had already alienated many Chinese-American scientists; the DOGE cuts accelerated this exodus.⁴⁴

China, recognizing the opportunity, ramped up its recruitment of talent, particularly in green technology and artificial intelligence. While the U.S. cancelled hydrogen research, China launched the world's largest green hydrogen plant and heavily subsidized its sector.²⁰ This "reverse brain drain" represents a strategic catastrophe for the United States. Intellectual capital is the primary driver of the modern economy. By making the U.S. a hostile environment for researchers—through funding instability, political interference, and visa restrictions—DOGE may have inadvertently strengthened the U.S.'s primary geopolitical rival.

9. Conclusion: The Aggressive Dismantling

Did DOGE take an overly aggressive stance on cuts and layoffs? The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the answer is yes, but with a crucial nuance: the aggression was not random chaos, but a calculated structural demolition.

The cuts were "aggressive" in three distinct ways:

1. Magnitude: The sheer volume of cuts—300,000 jobs, billions in cancelled grants, entire satellite constellations deorbited—exceeded any fiscal correction in modern American history. It dwarfed the Grace Commission’s impact and fundamentally altered the size of the federal state.

2. Velocity: By utilizing impoundment, executive orders, and immediate cancellations, DOGE bypassed the stabilizing mechanisms of congressional oversight and peer review. This speed prevented any meaningful assessment of the value of the programs being cut. Functioning satellites were destroyed before their data could be archived; cancer trials were paused mid-stream.

3. Targeting: The specific focus on climate science, environmental justice, and diversity initiatives reveals that "efficiency" was often a proxy for ideological cleansing. The preservation of AI and fusion research shows that the administration values science, but only certain kinds of science—specifically, that which aligns with industrial growth and national defense, rather than environmental stewardship or social equity.

The long-term legacy of the DOGE cuts will likely be a smaller, more focused, but significantly more brittle American scientific enterprise. The "fat" may have been trimmed, but so too was the muscle and bone. The loss of climate data streams will blind policymakers to future crises; the exodus of talent will enrich rival nations; and the erosion of trust between the scientific community and the federal government may never be fully repaired. In its quest for efficiency, DOGE sacrificed effectiveness, leaving the United States ill-equipped to face the complex, scientific challenges of the 21st century.

Works cited

1. Musk and Ramaswamy say DOGE will target $500 billion in spending. Here's where they say they'll cut. - CBS News, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/musk-ramaswamy-doge-500-billion-spending-where-they-will-cut/

2. Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia, accessed January 19, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency

3. Trump launches 'DOGE' Workforce Optimization Initiative executive order - R&D World, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.rdworldonline.com/trump-launches-doge-workforce-optimization-initiative-executive-order-whats-the-impact-on-federal-science-agencies/

4. Government Accountability - The White House, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/doge/

5. 2025 United States federal mass layoffs - Wikipedia, accessed January 19, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_mass_layoffs

6. Noaa to stop tracking cost of climate crisis-fueled disasters: 'Major loss' - The Guardian, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/08/noaa-climate-crisis-extreme-weather-disasters-trump

7. Reforming federal government agencies: From Reagan's vision to Trump's promise, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/government/reforming-federal-government/

8. Analyzing DOGE actions one month into Trump's second administration, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/democracy-governance/analyzing-doge-actions-one-month-trumps-second

9. Withholding agency funds at the end of the year under consideration, White House says, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/06/withholding-agency-funds-end-year-under-consideration-white-house-says/406323/

10. DOGE Details: The Knowns and Unknowns of Trump's Cost-Cutting Board - Gibson Dunn, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.gibsondunn.com/doge-details-the-knowns-and-unknowns-of-trump-cost-cutting-board/

11. The State of the Science 1 Year On: The Federal Workforce - Eos.org, accessed January 19, 2026, https://eos.org/report/the-state-of-the-science-1-year-on-the-federal-workforce

12. Science policy this week: April 21, 2025 - AIP.ORG, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.aip.org/fyi/the-week-of-april-21-2025

13. NSF Has Canceled More Than 1500 Grants. Nearly 90 Percent Were Related to DEI., accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/nsf-has-canceled-more-1500-grants-nearly-90-percent-were-related-dei

14. A Good Start: Congress Cuts Funding for USAID and Other Foreign Aid Programs, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.cato.org/blog/good-start-congress-cuts-funding-usaid-other-foreign-aid-programs

15. US Supreme Court gives the Administration a free pass to withhold foreign aid, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.eatg.org/hiv-news/us-supreme-court-gives-the-administration-a-free-pass-to-withhold-foreign-aid/

16. Supreme Court allows Trump administration to withhold billions in foreign-aid funding, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-withhold-billions-in-foreign-aid-funding/

17. Trump administration asks SCOTUS once again for ability to freeze billions in foreign aid, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/trump-administration-asks-scotus-once-again-for-ability-to-freeze-billions-in-foreign-aid/

18. Energy Department Announces Termination of 223 Projects, Saving Over $7.5 Billion, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-termination-223-projects-saving-over-75-billion

19. Biggest Hydrogen Project Cancellations in 2025 and 2024 - EnkiAI, accessed January 19, 2026, https://enkiai.com/biggest-hydrogen-project-cancellations-in-2025-and-2024

20. Trump's cuts to billion-dollar hydrogen hubs rattle industry - Canary Media, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/hydrogen-hub-cuts-trump-doe-list

21. Trump Budget Request Shrinks Federal Science Agencies - The Bridge - AGU, accessed January 19, 2026, https://thebridge.agu.org/2025/05/05/trump-budget-request-shrinks-federal-science-agencies/

22. E2: $8 Billion and 16 New Clean Energy Projects Abandoned in First 3 Months of 2025, Triple 2022-2024 Cancelled Investments Combined, accessed January 19, 2026, https://e2.org/releases/march-clean-economy-works-update/

23. DOE's Project Cancellations Slam US Industries - Sierra Club, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2025/10/doe-s-project-cancellations-slam-us-industries

24. Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | NESDIS - NOAA, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/about/documents-reports/notice-of-changes/2025-notice-of-changes/billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters

25. Welch Leads Bill to Restore NOAA's Extreme Weather Database, Keep Americans Informed of Natural Disasters, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.welch.senate.gov/welch-leads-bill-to-restore-noaas-extreme-weather-database-keep-americans-informed-of-natural-disasters/

26. The EPA Is Shuttering its Online Archive: Why that Matters - UCS blog, accessed January 19, 2026, https://blog.ucs.org/science-blogger/the-epa-is-shuttering-its-online-archive-why-that-matters/

27. Why the federal government is making climate data disappear, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/07/why-federal-government-making-climate-data-disappear/406715/

28. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin Cancels 400+ Grants in 4th Round of Cuts with DOGE, Saving Americans More than $1.7B, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-lee-zeldin-cancels-400-grants-4th-round-cuts-doge-saving-americans

29. DOGE went 'slash and burn' on EPA grants. Scientists fear 'grave' impacts | FedScoop, accessed January 19, 2026, https://fedscoop.com/doge-epa-grant-cuts-science-research-pollution/

30. NASA Science Faces an “Extinction-Level Event” with Trump Draft Budget Proposal - Eos, accessed January 19, 2026, https://eos.org/research-and-developments/nasa-science-faces-an-extinction-level-event-with-trump-draft-budget-proposal

31. 19 Active Science Missions Canceled in NASA's FY2026 Budget Request - Friends of NASA, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.friendsofnasa.org/2025/06/19-active-science-missions-cancelled-in.html

32. Will NASA Kill a Pair of Critical Climate Satellites?, accessed January 19, 2026, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08092025/nasa-carbon-dioxide-satellites-trump/

33. NASA's Juno probe orbiting Jupiter may have come to an end, but no one can confirm, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.space.com/space-exploration/missions/nasas-juno-probe-orbiting-jupiter-may-have-come-to-an-end-but-no-one-can-confirm

34. Juno (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, accessed January 19, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft)

35. Trump Administration's Budget Threatens NASA Climate and Carbon-Monitoring Satellites, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.clearbluemarkets.com/knowledge-base/trump-administrations-budget-threatens-nasa-climate-and-carbon-monitoring-satellites

36. FY 2026 President's Budget Request Summary - NASA, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/fy-2026-budget-technical-supplement-002.pdf

37. New NASA budget would shut down 41 space missions - The Planetary Society, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.planetary.org/articles/billions-wasted-mysteries-unsolved-the-missions-nasa-may-be-forced-to-abandon

38. See the alarming extent of NIH and NSF funding cuts in 2025 - Science News, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nih-nsf-cuts-2025-data

39. Stanford to lay off over 360 staff following $140 million budget cuts, accessed January 19, 2026, https://stanforddaily.com/2025/08/06/stanford-to-layoff-over-360-staff-following-140-million-budget-cuts/

40. Project 2025 wanted to hobble the federal workforce. DOGE has hastily done that, and more, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.govexec.com/transition/2025/04/project-2025-wanted-hobble-federal-workforce-doge-has-hastily-done-and-more/404390/

41. What you need to know about DOGE and the limits of its authority - CREW, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/what-you-need-to-know-about-doge-and-the-limits-of-its-authority/

42. Heinrich Slams DOGE Attacks on USGS Scientists and Budget Cuts in Letter to Interior Department Secretary - U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.energy.senate.gov/2025/6/heinrich-slams-doge-attacks-on-usgs-scientists-and-budget-cuts-in-letter-to-interior-department-secretary

43. Nature Reports a US Science Brain Drain Has Begun - HPCwire, accessed January 19, 2026, https://www.hpcwire.com/2025/04/24/nature-reports-a-u-s-science-brain-drain-has-begun/

44. Reverse Brain Drain? Exploring Trends among Chinese Scientists in the U.S. - Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions, accessed January 19, 2026, https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/reverse-brain-drain-exploring-trends-among-chinese-scientists-us