Budget cuts in the nation
On May 2, the Trump administration’s 2026 budget plan proposed $163 billion in federal cuts, reducing non-defense spending by 22.6% while increasing the Pentagon’s budget to $1 trillion. At press time, the plan narrowly passed in the House and will head to the Senate.
The Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department, Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development all face significant cuts. In contrast, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security would receive increased funding for enforcement and national security, including expanded deportations and border control efforts.
With departments facing cuts across the board under President Trump’s plan, educational programs are especially vulnerable on a national level, in California and at universities, including the labs and mentors for Marlborough’s Honors Research program.
Nationally, these proposals align with efforts from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has cut funding for federal agencies despite congressional allocations. Spending on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has essentially halted, with many staff members placed on leave and aid programs suspended. The new budget plan may lead to permanent agency shutdowns.
The Department of Education faces massive cuts, with Trump advocating for its total elimination. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon was assigned to facilitate the department’s shutdown, and in March, she placed nearly half of its employees on leave. Under the proposed budget, the Education Department would incur approximately $12 billion in cuts. McMahon defended the decision, asserting that the current system “is not driving improved student outcomes.”
Debate Program Head Adam Torson stated that eliminating the Education Department would not significantly affect education funding, as most funding is managed at the state level. However, the department oversees Title I, a federal program that aids underprivileged schools. Torson noted that budget cuts to the Education Department could notably harm Title I schools and their low-income students.
“These are districts that are already running on a shoestring, and if they take a budget cut of 10-20%, that’s really devastating,” Torson said. “These districts have to compete with wealthier districts for teachers and staff, so they can’t just cut the cost of everything by 20%.”
Many programs supporting low-income students would be impacted. TRIO and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), which assist middle-class students in accessing college, are labeled in budget documents as “relics of the past.” The administration argues that financial incentives are unnecessary for promoting access. Funding for the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants Program (SEOG), which aids students with exceptional financial need, would also be cut due to budget reductions.
Additionally, nearly $1 billion would be slashed from federal work-study programs, along with $315 million from preschool development grants, $890 million from services aimed at helping immigrant students improve their English and $64 million from Howard University, among other cuts.
According to the Office of Management and Budget’s statement on eliminating SEOG funding, these budget cuts target “woke” programs and undermine Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts they label as promoting a “radical leftist ideology” in education. Torson noted that the Trump administration’s threat to DEI funding through budgetary means is unprecedented in Republican history regarding educational cuts.
“One of the reasons why Republicans have long been critical of the Department of Education is they say that education is a quintessential states’ rights kind of issue,” Torson said. “It sits uncomfortably with that position to now use federal education dollars to force states to get rid of or adopt certain curricula.”
Advocates for higher education and research have expressed deep concern about the potential impacts of the Trump administration’s proposed budget plan on education, criticizing it for halting innovation and research.
“Rather than ushering in a new Golden Age, the administration is proposing cuts to higher education and scientific research of an astonishing magnitude that would decimate U.S. innovation, productivity and national security,” Mark Becker, the president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, said in a statement. “We call on Congress to reject these deeply misguided proposed cuts and instead invest in the nation’s future through education and path-breaking research.”
Budget cuts in California
The education budget cuts have significantly impacted millions of children and families across California. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has been the core source of information that aids educators, researchers and the general public in understanding the state of education in the U.S. for the past two centuries. At the start of 2025, they had over 100 employees, yet by May, all but three were laid off. Though the state and local governments are largely responsible for school funding, the federal government helps provide public schools with the finances required to operate. Due to California’s larger population and having the most public schools in the nation, budget cuts will affect California to a greater extent.
The threat to cut funding from schools maintaining DEI programs endangers Title I funding. In January, Trump signed an executive order banning all DEI initiatives across public and private sectors. California currently receives more than $2 billion in federal Title I funding, over $1 billion for special education and $250 million for extracurricular programs. However, on April 24, a California judge blocked the order that would have forced schools to eliminate DEI programs or risk losing federal funding.
California receives $3 billion to provide daily meals for students, which is a critical resource for low-income families across the state. In the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), 80% of children get free or reduced-priced meals, and it’s estimated that three-quarters of families rely on school-provided food.
After the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) allocated $1 billion for the 4-H Youth Development Program, allowing schools in California to purchase fresh goods from local producers. However, the funding has been cut only five years after it was allocated. This change left families worried for their children’s safety, as essential meals were being taken away from kids who depend on them. If California, a predominantly liberal state, does not comply with the new policies from the administration, it may lead to policies where the quantity and quality of food in federally funded schools may be significantly reduced.
For the coming year, the Trump administration plans to implement budget cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services, directly affecting Head Start. This is a crucial early childhood education program for low-income families in shaping children’s futures, with studies showing long-term benefits such as reduced adult poverty, increased likelihood of higher education and improved parenting skills later in life. Eliminating the program could leave tens of thousands of families without access to early education and with few, if any, affordable alternatives. Although public schools face the most immediate danger, the effects are beginning to reach independent schools like Marlborough.
Budget cuts and Marlborough
While Marlborough is not dependent on public funding, these cuts still have a significant impact on parts of the community, especially the Honors Research program. The program is facing growing challenges as it prepares for the 2025-26 school year. Many of the external labs and mentors that students rely on, often at universities, have lost the funding and materials needed to support both their own research and student projects.
Due to the recent cuts, research has become more expensive than ever before. Students entering or continuing their Honors Research projects are now facing challenges, as many of their mentors must conduct complex research with expensive tools but with significantly fewer resources. With the future of education, especially research, growing uncertain, Director of the Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation Allison Ponzio expressed concern over how the Honors Research program will move forward.
“I’m approaching conversations with my Honors Research students the same way I did going into the pandemic. We just have no idea what the next couple months are going to be like, but we’re in it together,” Ponzio said.
Beyond education, cuts to health or human services programs are also now affecting Honors Research students who are working with researchers in those fields. Some mentors are losing stable positions, leaving students uncertain about their availability next year. For incoming students, the path ahead looks challenging, with unclear resources for their programs.
“I told my students, ‘You joined this program to see what it’s like to be a real-world researcher, the good parts and the tough parts, and you’re going to be exposed to more than you thought you might be when you applied,’” Ponzio said.
As the administration’s policies impact the labs and mentors involved in Honors Research, they face increasing pressure and dwindling resources. Despite this, Marlborough is committed to supporting the program and respecting the time and efforts of the labs and mentors.
“We’re hoping mentors continue to see our mission in educating the next generation of female scientists,” Ponzio said.
The cuts also affect the Class of 2025 as students finalize college decisions. The administration’s proposed education policies impact universities nationwide, complicating the decision-making for seniors who submitted applications before the changes were announced. Many seniors had already received admissions decisions when the policy proposals were made public, but the changes made them reconsider previously secure choices.
“The budget cuts are not seeing the value in education,” Jane ’25 said. “From an unbiased stance, the things they’re asking not to teach us and cutting out the DEI policies are impractical, [because] they’re [policies] made to help people.”
As concerns about the future of higher education continue to grow, many worry that even the nation’s most prestigious universities are at risk.
Budget cuts and universities
The Trump administration has frozen federal funding for higher education institutions that it claims promote political agendas contrary to its own. Nearly 100 universities, including several Ivy League institutions, are scrutinized for fostering divisive ideologies through DEI programs or not adequately addressing antisemitism. The cuts to research grants have raised concerns about future academic funding.
In March, Columbia University faced a freeze of $400 million in federal grants. The government demanded changes to its policies on campus protests, security practices and Middle Eastern studies. To preserve its current research operations, the university ultimately agreed to these conditions.
Johns Hopkins University, the most federally funded research university, shut down several labs and laid off over 2,000 workers due to significant budget cuts. It will lose over $800 million in federal funding from USAID and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), impacting the Bloomberg School of Public Health, its medical school and the nonprofit Jhpiego.
“We are not an especially politically active campus, but when the funding was cut for the NIH and USAID, a big group of us went to DC to protest for science funding,” a Marlborough alumnus at Johns Hopkins who wishes to remain anonymous said.
When the health research center at Johns Hopkins was hit significantly, the unversity tried to make sure that their departments had back-up plans for the loss of funding, and some private investments filled in the lacking funds.
“The thing I keep hearing from professors in climate research is that ‘this is only for four years,’” the same Marlborough alumnus at Johns Hopkins who wishes to remain anonymous said.
In April, Harvard University faced a crisis when it resisted the administration’s demands to address antisemitism and maintain “merit-based” admissions, leading to over $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts being frozen, jeopardizing vital research. Harvard President Alan Garber asserted that the university would “not surrender its independence,” citing concerns for constitutional rights. Consequently, Harvard filed a lawsuit, claiming the federal actions violated the First Amendment by interfering with academic freedom and improperly revoking funding.
Cornell University faced a $1 billion freeze on funding, while Northwestern University had $750 million in grants frozen, both due to civil rights violations regarding race and religion, which halted their research activities.
Other institutions like Brown and Princeton also experienced significant funding cuts. According to The Associated Press, Brown faced a cut of $510 million in grants due to mishandling complaints related to antisemitism. Similarly, Princeton experienced a loss of $210 million from federal agencies, which includes NASA and the Department of Energy, over comparable issues. In a separate incident, according to CNN, funding amounting to $175 million was suspended for the University of Pennsylvania following a controversy surrounding a transgender swimmer, which also resulted in the cancellation of informal offers for its Ph.D. programs in the School of Arts and Sciences.
Additionally, the University of California system will experience a $129 million budget cut in the 2025-26 fiscal year. If planned cuts are implemented, college officials told state lawmakers they will be forced to enroll fewer new students.
Beginning at Rutgers University in March, several public colleges passed resolutions claiming that the actions of the Trump administration pose a significant threat to the integrity of scientific research and the protection of free speech in American higher education. The resolution urges participating institutions to contribute to a defense fund that will be used to provide strategic or immediate relief to targeted members. These universities include but are not limited to the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, the University of Maryland and the University of Washington. Many are urging private universities to follow a similar plan.
“I’m horrified that our country would voluntarily choose to harm innovation, but I also know that in the long term, the university will continue doing a lot of that work,” the anonymous Marlborough alumnus said.
