Israel and Lebanon have agreed to meet again, officials said, after a first round of talks were held Tuesday in Washington, DC.

Lebanon and Israel held their first diplomatic talks in over three decades, a rare encounter aimed at ending fighting between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah group.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who mediated, said it was a “historic opportunity” to end Hezbollah’s influence.

A US statement said the two sides had agreed to launch direct negotiations, at a time and place to be determined. Israel said it wanted to disarm all non-state terror groups – a reference to Hezbollah.

Lebanon called for a ceasefire and measures to address its humanitarian crisis. The two countries do not have diplomatic relations, and the last direct, high-level talks between them took place in 1993.

Over 2,000 people have been killed since Israeli military operations in Lebanon began on 2 March, just days after US and Israeli strikes began in Iran.

While the two sides were meeting in Washington on Tuesday, Hezbollah claimed at least 24 attacks on Israel and Israeli troops in Lebanon.

Drone and rocket alarms sounded in communities across northern Israel for much of the day.

Israel has said its operations in Lebanon are aimed at disarming and dismantling the group, which it also fought in 2023 and 2024 as the war in Gaza raged.

A spokesman for the US state department, Tommy Pigott, said in a statement after the talks that both Israel and Lebanon had agreed to work towards reducing the influence of Hezbollah.

The Lebanese side also called for a “ceasefire and concrete measures to address and alleviate the severe humanitarian crisis” in the country, he added.

Meanwhile, the US “expressed its support for Israel’s right to defend itself” from Hezbollah’s attacks, he said.

Speaking to reporters ahead of the meeting, Rubio said the meeting was “a process”.

“This will take time, but we believe it is worth this endeavour,” he said. “It’s a historic gathering that we hope to build on.”

In a statement, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said he hoped the talks would “mark the beginning of the end of the suffering of the Lebanese people in general, and those in the south in particular”.

He said the “only solution” to the conflict would be in the Lebanese armed forces “being solely responsible for the security of the area”.

The Lebanese government’s capacity to confront Hezbollah, however, is limited.

Ahead of the talks, a senior member of the organisation told the AP news agency it would not abide by any settlement agreed in Washington.

“We are not bound by what they agreed to,” said Wafiq Safa, a member of Hezbollah’s political council.

Hezbollah, a well-armed and sophisticated militia group that was founded in 1982, holds enormous sway in Lebanon’s predominantly Shia south as well as in the southern suburbs of its capital, Beirut.

Politicians affiliated with the group also hold two cabinet-level positions with the government.

Their relationship with Lebanon’s central government has become increasingly strained since the group moved to enter the war between Israel and Iran, its main benefactor.

In separate talks held between the US and Iran in Pakistan, Iranian negotiators insisted that Lebanon be included in any ceasefire – although both the US and Israel said it would not.

A US state department official told the BBC that the Israel-Lebanon talks were planned a month ago, before the talks with Iran in Islamabad were confirmed.

In addition to the more than 2,000 people killed, about a million people have been displaced in the conflict since the most recent hostilities began.

— Agencies

Not every member of the FOMC is so sure.

Indeed, Deutsche Bank believes Fed chairman Jay Powell’s powers of diplomacy are likely to be tested this week with multiple members of the FOMC expected to dissent from the majority vote—with some members pushing to hold rates steady, while others favor more aggressive cutting.

Deutsche’s Jim Reid noted to clients this morning: “There is likely to be differing views within the committee. On the dovish side there could be three calling for a 50bp cut and possibly one or two voting for no change. It has the potential to be the first meeting where three governors dissent since 1988, and the first with dissents on both sides since September 2019.”

A gamut of perspectives on the FOMC is not unusual: After all, there are 11 people on the committee, with an additional five alternate members, further individuals on the board of governors, and economists from across the country also presenting their findings. Some difference of opinion is not only to be expected, but welcomed in order to paint a full picture of the economy.

But to have members disagree with policy so strongly that they vote against the consensus view is a signal to markets of tension at the highest level: If members of the FOMC aren’t on board with the plan, why should Wall Street be? As Bob Hetzel, formerly a senior economist to the Richmond Fed told NPR, dissent on the FOMC is “very discouraging and very disturbing to financial markets.”

With dissent a possibility but not a certainty, markets were relatively flat Monday morning. The S&P 500 was down a minor 0.048%, the Nasdaq up 0.44%. In Europe the FTSE 100 was flat, up 0.013% and the CAC 40 up 0.93%, while in Asia the Nikkei 225 was up 0.89% and the SSE down 0.26%.

The real market which is moving in anticipation of the Fed’s meeting is gold, now up close to 40% so far this year. However, UBS’s Mark Haefele points out that if the Fed resumes easing while price pressures remain, real yields will fall. As such, while the bank retains an attractive view on the asset, advising investors to retain a mid-single digit percentage of their portfolio allocations in gold.

Analysts expect a couple of FOMC members to be particularly vocal in advocating for a bigger rate cute: Governors Chris Waller and Michelle Bowman. Both dissented from the consensus at the last meeting and pushed for a cut, while the group on the whole voted for a hold.

Waller has lobbied for cuts for months now, advocating the Fed should “look through” inflation produced by President Trump’s tariff plan and instead focus on the underlying momentum of the economy, which he felt was slowing and would show up in employment figures.

At the time, speculators questioned whether Waller might simply be “auditioning” for the role of Fed chairman, with Trump making it clear that when Powell’s term ends next year he will be replaced by an individual with a less restrictive stance on interest rates. Trump’s pressure on the Fed has been the story of 2025 so far, with the Oval Office dubbing the chairman “Too Late” for thus far refusing to cut interest.

That argument has been bolstered by weaker data on the employment side: The economy added just 22,000 jobs last month, and Labor Department revisions also confirmed in the year to March 25, America added 911,000 jobs less than previously thought.

On the other hand, some members of the FOMC have advocated for a more patient approach on account of health in other parts of the economy. Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid told Fox Business last month that while monetary policy may currently be restrictive it is not “very restrictive,” he argued: “With stock prices near record highs and bond spreads near record lows, I see little evidence of a highly restrictive monetary policy.”

Powell’s tone

While Powell’s vote doesn’t technically count more than that of any other member, his stance as leader of the Fed will inevitably color the tone of discussions.

The chairman has of course so far pushed a “wait and see” approach, but as Bank of America questioned in a note Friday: “How hard has Powell pivoted?” Economists Claudio Irigoyen and Antonio Gabriel wrote: “The Fed has telegraphed a 25bp cut at its September meeting. Markets will look to the SEP and press conference to assess the pace and extent of cuts going forward. The macro forecasts in the SEP should look very similar to June. We think the 2025 and 2026 median dots will show 50bp of cuts each. Risks are for 75bp in 2025.

“Powell’s characterization of the labor slowdown (cyclical or structural?) and inflation (one-off or sticky?) will provide clues on his expected policy path.”

Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon has the same question. In a note Friday he echoed: “While markets are currently pricing in three rate cuts before year-end, we believe the Fed will proceed gradually. An October cut remains possible, but would likely require a negative—or near-zero—September payroll print.”

Here’s a snapshot of the markets globally this morning:

• S&P 500 futures were up 0.11% this morning. 
• STOXX Europe 600 was up 0.40% in early trading. 
• The U.K.’s FTSE 100 was fla, up 0.013%t.
• Japan’s Nikkei 225 was up 0.89%.
• China’s CSI 300 was up 0.24%. 
• South Korea’s KOSPI was up 0.35%%.
• India’s Nifty 50 was down 0.18%%.
• Bitcoin was down a little, to just below $115K.

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

Note: Powell was appointed as governor by Obama and nominated as chair by Trump.

When President Trump took office in 2025, just two of the seven seats on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors were held by his appointees. He had also elevated Jerome H. Powell to the chair position during his first term.

Note: Powell was appointed as governor by Obama and nominated as chair by Trump.

A seat opened up earlier this month when a Biden appointee stepped down. And on Monday, Mr. Trump announced that he was planning to fire another Biden-appointed member of the board. If he succeeds, a majority of the Federal Reserve Board will have been appointed by Mr. Trump.

Notes: Kugler announced her resignation Aug. 1, and it took effect Aug. 8.

Mr. Trump has made no secret of his desire to reshape the top ranks of the Fed, repeatedly lashing out at Mr. Powell and his colleagues for keeping interest rates too high.

Mr. Trump’s first opportunity to remake the Fed roster came sooner than expected with the resignation of Adriana D. Kugler. He is working to create another with the firing of Lisa D. Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud. Fed governors can be fired only “for cause,” generally understood to mean gross misconduct.

Ms. Cook, who has not been charged with wrongdoing or convicted of a crime, said she would not leave, and her lawyer said she would sue to challenge the dismissal. In a statement, a spokesman for the Fed emphasized the central bank’s independence but said it would “abide by any court decision.”

If Mr. Trump succeeds in removing Ms. Cook, he will be able to appoint another governor to serve out her term, which ends in January 2038.

Mr. Trump has already nominated Stephen Miran, his top economic adviser, to serve out Ms. Kugler’s term.

With Cook’s dismissal, Trump-appointed board members could soon be a majority at the Fed

Presidents appoint Fed governors to staggered 14-year terms, meaning one term expires every two years. The structure is meant to safeguard the Fed’s independence, preventing a president from packing the board and ensuring the Fed governors can consider a longer-term horizon than Congress or the president.

“The idea is that you can do something for the long-term health of the country that could be a short-term political loss,” said Aaron Klein, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

In reality, most do not serve out the full 14 years, and previous presidents have had the opportunity to appoint multiple board members.

But in the past, board nominations were relatively nonpartisan, Mr. Klein said.

“Governors were routinely nominated by one party and renominated by the other,” he said, pointing to Mr. Powell as an example. Mr. Powell, a registered Republican, was appointed to the board by President Barack Obama, nominated as chair by Mr. Trump and renominated by President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

But this time, Mr. Klein said, Mr. Trump is seeking to install loyalists who favor his economic policies. “What is unique is that these are governors who are likely to do what Trump says, and if not, he’ll fire them.” Mr. Klein added that Mr. Trump’s actions, if allowed to proceed, would “eviscerate” the principle of central bank independence.

Mr. Trump’s nominees would need to be confirmed by the Senate, which is back in session Sept. 2 — in time for the Fed’s next rate-setting meeting Sept. 16-17.

During last month’s meeting, Christopher J. Waller and Michelle W. Bowman, both Trump appointees, voted against the central bank’s decision to leave interest rates unchanged, preferring instead to cut rates.

In a twist of timing, Mr. Powell just last week gave his strongest indication yet that the central bank was ready to resume rate cuts as soon as September.

Another key opportunity to reshape the board will arise in May, when Mr. Powell’s term as chair is set to expire. He can then stay on as governor until January 2028. That would be atypical; most of the time, Fed chairs step down to avoid undercutting the authority of the new chair. Mr. Powell has declined to share his plans.

The power of the Federal Reserve Board goes beyond voting on rates. Members also approve and reappoint the Fed’s regional presidents, who are responsible for financial regulation in their region, including funding for bailouts. In February, all 12 presidents’ terms will expire, and they will need to be reappointed by the board.

What is typically a pro forma matter could provide Mr. Trump with another opportunity to overhaul the Fed system, Mr. Klein said.

“A Trump-loyal Board of Governors could get rid of them all,” he said.

According to remarks made on CNBC, Michael Saylor, co-founder and executive chairman of Strategy, repeated a bold forecast: Bitcoin may grow 30% annually over the next 20 years.

He framed the view around Bitcoin’s fixed supply of 21 million coins and its global availability. Short statement. Big claim.

Saylor’s Long-Term Case

Saylor has pushed Strategy into heavy Bitcoin custody since 2020, and that strategy is on public display. Based on reports, the firm now holds over 226,000 BTC.

On X, Saylor posted “Bitcoin is on Sale” alongside Strategy’s acquisition chart, a move that many investors read as a hint at another purchase.

His point is simple: scarcity plus wider adoption could keep upward pressure on price. Some people call that convincing. Others call it risky.

MICHAEL SAYLOR SAYS LIVE ON CNBC THAT #BITCOIN WILL GO UP 30% A YEAR FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS

JUST THE BEGINNING pic.twitter.com/Cr847NVPU6

— The Bitcoin Historian (@pete_rizzo_) August 24, 2025

Mixed Reactions From Analysts

Not everyone agrees on the size of the upside. According to one public analyst named Bitcoin Hopium, gains could be far higher — a claim of 100% a year was floated.

That forecast sits well outside mainstream estimates and would produce astronomical returns if it came true.

Skeptics point to volatility, regulatory questions, and the challenge of predicting markets two decades out. Supporters say large corporate treasuries and wider institutional use would help stabilize demand.

BTCUSD trading at $111,053 on the 24-hour chart: TradingView

Possible Strategy Move

The X post and the chart were quickly picked over by investors. Historically, Strategy has bought more Bitcoin after similar signals. If the company follows through, the purchase would add to a corporate holding already described as the world’s largest.

Some buying has been done quietly in the past. Other buys were announced after the fact. Either way, Strategy’s moves are closely watched and can influence market mood.

Metaplanet’s Big Buy

Reports have disclosed a separate development in Japan. Tokyo-listed Metaplanet bought 103 BTC for about $11.7 million, at an average of roughly $113,491 per coin.

The company now holds 18,991 BTC, bought at an average price of $102,712. That level of accumulation has pushed Metaplanet into public lists and helped it gain attention on indices. It’s a noteworthy move from a firm that began piling up Bitcoin in April 2024.

Bottomline

In short: a high-profile executive made a long-term, highly bullish prediction. A market signal was posted on social media. A separate public company added more Bitcoin.

The takeaway for readers is clear — these are moves that will shape investor talk. How prices respond will depend on actual buys, broader demand, and events that are still to come.

Featured image from Garloon, chart from TradingView

National Science Foundation grant funding through May 21

10-year average

$2 billion

The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the fundamental scientific research at American universities, is awarding new grants at the slowest pace in at least 35 years.

The funding decreases touch virtually every area of science — extending far beyond the diversity programs and other “woke” targets that the Trump administration says it wants to cut.

Grants funded by the National Science Foundation through May 21 ↓ 51%

2015-2024 average $2 billion In 2025 $989 million

Math, physics and chemistry

$432m

The chart shows the intended funding amount for new grants awarded by the N.S.F. during the 2025 calendar year through May 21, compared with the average funding for the same period from 2015 to 2024. In 2025 dollars.

Source: N.S.F.

That means less support for early-stage research that underpins future technological advancements — and American competitiveness — in areas like computer science and engineering; physics and chemistry; climate science and weather forecasting; and materials and manufacturing innovations.

It also means less money for undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and early-career professors — potentially disrupting the nation’s future scientific work force.

Economists have warned that cutting federal funding for scientific research could, in the long run, damage the U.S. economy by an amount equivalent to a major recession.

“These cuts are the height of self-inflicted harm,” said Robert Atkinson, the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan science and technology policy research institute. The foundation has argued that China probably already conducts more research and development than the United States.

“If they succeed in these cuts, the result will be slower economic growth, less innovation and new tech startups, and even more diminished competitiveness vis-à-vis China,” he added.

The lag in this year’s funding, more than $1 billion below the 10-year average, is for new research grants, but the Trump administration has gone further. It has also terminated more than 1,600 active grants for existing research projects, together worth roughly $1.5 billion (of which at least 40 percent has already been spent).

And it wants to eliminate nearly $5 billion of the agency’s $9 billion budget for next year, cutting spending on “climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral and economic sciences,” and diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Among the in-progress grants that have been terminated, those focused on education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, accounted for the vast majority of the canceled funding. Many of these grants focused on broadening participation in science and engineering among underrepresented student groups.

Canceled funding from in-progress grants

STEM education	-$656 mil.
Math, physics, chem.	-$61 mil.
Geosciences	-$53 mil.
Computer science	-$47 mil.
Social sciences	-$46 mil.
Technology	-$38 mil.
Engineering	-$36 mil.
Biology	-$28 mil.

The chart shows the total cut in intended award funding for terminated grants grouped by N.S.F. directorate after excluding money that has already been spent.

Source: USA Spending and Grant Watch

But in contrast with the canceled grants, the slowdown in issuing new grants is broader, representing an across-the-board hit to American science.

Decline in new grant funding in 2025

Math, physics, chem.	-$289 mil.
STEM education	-$223 mil.
Biology	-$156 mil.
Engineering	-$127 mil.
Geosciences	-$101 mil.
Computer science	-$85 mil.
Technology	-$18 mil.
Social sciences	-$16 mil.

The N.S.F. said in a statement that while it will focus on the Trump administration’s priorities — like artificial intelligence, quantum information science, biotechnology and nuclear energy — it remains “committed to awarding grants and funding all areas of science and engineering.”

Yet the data shows the agency’s funding of new grants at its lowest level since at least 1990, around when the N.S.F. expanded into its modern structure. The funding has slowed even further since April 30, when agency employees were told to stop awarding funds entirely, according to an email reviewed by The New York Times.

Cumulative grant funding by the National Science Foundation, 1990-2025

Shows the cumulative total intended award for all grants funded by the N.S.F. from Jan. 1 to May 21 of each year in 2025 dollars. Spikes reflect large multi-year grants.

Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House science committee, said the Trump administration was denying funding that had already been approved by Congress.

“What they’re doing is not only illegal, but it’s also very damaging to the science enterprise and, ultimately, to the economy of the United States,” she said.

The N.S.F. has said it is canceling awards that are not in line with its priorities, including those focused on D.E.I., environmental justice, misinformation and disinformation. The cancellations have been cheered by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who in February published a list identifying more than a third of the grants that have been terminated.

“My Commerce Committee investigation exposed how the Biden administration corrupted the N.S.F. grantmaking process with a divisive fixation on identity politics,” Mr. Cruz said in a statement. “This kind of politicization erodes public trust in science. The N.S.F. must spend taxpayer dollars responsibly and prioritize objectivity and scientific rigor.”

House Democrats on the science committee have said the cancellations themselves are “based on hard-right political ideology and not scientific or research expertise,” and have noted flaws in Mr. Cruz’s report, like associating the term “biodiversity” with D.E.I.

N.S.F. officials interviewed for this article said many grants that have already gone through the agency’s rigorous review process and were recommended for funding have been in limbo for months. After the April 30 email freezing new awards, which was first reported by Nature, another email on May 13 allowed for some new funding but kept a freeze in place for higher education institutions.

A spokesman for the N.S.F. said it was still “making awards to higher education institutions.”

Either way, the N.S.F.’s directorate for STEM education has had one of the steepest shortfalls in new grants. Its award funding has declined by around 80 percent this year.

Funding through May 21 for …

STEM education ↓ 80%

2015-2024 average $280 million In 2025 $56 million

Undergrad. education

$135m

Equity for excellence in STEM

$46m

Research on learning

$77m

The N.S.F. says that it directly supported over 350,000 researchers, teachers and students last year alone. It supports over 20,000 graduate students, more than any other federal agency except the National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research and has also awarded far fewer grants this year.

Within its education branch, the N.S.F. has moved to eliminate the division of equity for excellence in STEM, which promotes D.E.I. and supports students who are underrepresented in science and engineering. The closure has been put on hold by a court order.

The N.S.F.’s division of graduate education, which funds graduate student research, typically approves $21 million in grants by this point of the year, but has awarded none so far. It announced 1,000 graduate research fellowships this year, down from over 2,000 in prior years, as reported last month by Nature.

Ms. Lofgren said these education programs are required by law and were adopted with bipartisan support.

“You can’t have science without scientists,” she said.

Here’s how the shortfall in grant awards this year has affected other areas of science:

Math, physics and chemistry ↓ 67%

2015-2024 average $432 million In 2025 $143 million

N.S.F. grant funding for core scientific disciplines like math, physics, chemistry and material sciences has dropped by two-thirds this year.

The N.S.F. funds “basic” research in these areas: fundamental or unexpected discoveries that may be decades away from practical applications. That includes research on ultrafast lasers in the 1990s that eventually resulted in bladeless LASIK eye surgery, or radar technology in the 1960s that revolutionized weather prediction three decades later.

Curiosity-driven research lays the foundation for private sector investments and leads to breakthroughs that can be commercialized, said Deborah Wince-Smith, the president of the Council of Competitiveness, a nonpartisan organization composed of chief executives, university presidents and heads of national laboratories.

The N.S.F. has also funded major astronomical observatories that have made groundbreaking discoveries such as capturing the first images of black holes or detecting gravitational waves.

In 2023, the N.S.F. funded half of all federally supported basic research in math and statistics in American colleges. So far this year, math and statistics grant funding is lagging behind previous years by 72 percent.

Funding for physics grants this year has fallen by 85 percent, and funding for materials research grants has dropped by 63 percent.

Engineering ↓ 57%

2015-2024 average $221 million In 2025 $94 million

N.S.F. grant funding for core engineering disciplines has dropped by 57 percent this year. These divisions fund areas like robotics, manufacturing innovations and semiconductor research.

Funding for grants related to chemical, bioengineering, environmental and transport systems has fallen by 71 percent this year, while funding for grants related to civil and mechanical engineering and manufacturing innovation has fallen by 48 percent.

Biology ↓ 52%

2015-2024 average $303 million In 2025 $147 million

Biological infrastructure

$99m

Most federal funding for biology research comes from the National Institutes of Health, but the N.S.F. also supports the field. Its grant funding for biology is at half of its previous 10-year average. There were fewer funds awarded for research in biotechnology and environmental biology, and less money for the tools, facilities and people that support biological research.

Computer science ↓ 31%

2015-2024 average $277 million In 2025 $192 million

Information & intelligent systems

$68m

Advanced cyberinfrastructure

$39m

Computing foundations

$74m

Computer science divisions that have supported research in topics like artificial intelligence, data science, computer security and emerging computing technologies have awarded fewer funds this year.

But the office of advanced cyberinfrastructure has awarded twice the funding that is typical by this time of year, including a $26 million grant for generative A.I. tools and a $20 million grant to “advance American leadership in artificial intelligence.”

In 2023, the N.S.F. provided 72 percent of federal funds for foundational computer science research at colleges and universities.

The agency provided early funding that led to recent developments in artificial intelligence. For example, the researchers who received the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work in artificial neural networks — technologies that underlie tools like ChatGPT — received N.S.F. funding in the 1980s, long before their work had widespread applications.

The funds also support the careers of graduate students, a large share of whom eventually work in the technology industry, said Greg Hager, the former head of the N.S.F.’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate, who resigned from the agency this month.

“It’s going to impact progress today, but it’s going to have profound impacts for years to come,” he said of the reductions in funding for computer science.

Geosciences ↓ 33%

2015-2024 average $305 million In 2025 $204 million

In 2023, the N.S.F. supported over half of all federally funded basic geosciences research in American universities.

This year, the agency has fired workers at the Office of Polar Programs, which coordinates research in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The polar office has awarded 88 percent less money in grants this year.

But the ocean sciences division has awarded more funding than typical this year, including a $39 million grant to establish an office that will manage a deep-sea drilling program and an $18 million grant to Columbia University to support a research vessel.

Social and behavioral sciences ↓ 20%

2015-2024 average $78 million In 2025 $62 million

Social science & economics

$31m

Behavioral & cognitive sciences

$32m

There has been a 96 percent decrease in grant funding for multidisciplinary research, which spans biology, physics and engineering. Previously funded projects have included using cells as sensors to monitor pollutants and diseases in wastewater, creating biodegradable robots, and engineering fungi to recover valuable metals from e-waste.

The behavioral and cognitive sciences division has awarded 30 percent more grant funding this year compared with the past decade’s average — despite the Trump administration’s targeting of “woke social, behavioral and economic sciences.” That included funding research on tracking changes in romantic relationships, how hand gestures can enhance learning and a database that lists the average rents in a neighborhood.

Technology, innovation and partnerships ↓ 17%

2015-2024 average $110 million In 2025 $92 million

Translational impacts

$86m

The CHIPS and Science Act, a bipartisan law enacted during the Biden administration in 2022, created the N.S.F.’s Directorate of Technology, Innovation and Partnerships. Last year it funded projects for agricultural technology in North Dakota, climate resilience in Wyoming and semiconductor assembly in Central Florida.

This branch’s grant funding has decreased by 17 percent, a moderate reduction compared with the decreases in other areas.

Here are all the changes so far:

Changes in N.S.F. grant funding

Show less detail

Directorate	2015-2024 avg. funding	2025 funding	Change
Education	$280 mil.	$56 mil.	-80%
Graduate education	$21 mil.	$0	-100%
Equity for excellence in STEM	$46 mil.	$1 mil.	-97%
Research on learning in formal and informal settings	$77 mil.	$16 mil.	-79%
Undergraduate education	$135 mil.	$39 mil.	-71%
Math, physics and chemistry	$432 mil.	$143 mil.	-67%
Strategic initiatives	$6k	$0	-100%
Physics	$72 mil.	$11 mil.	-85%
Mathematical sciences	$113 mil.	$32 mil.	-72%
Materials research	$118 mil.	$43 mil.	-63%
Chemistry	$103 mil.	$44 mil.	-57%
Astronomical sciences	$26 mil.	$12 mil.	-53%
Engineering	$221 mil.	$94 mil.	-57%
Emerging frontiers in research and innovation	$2 mil.	$42k	-98%
Chemical, bioengineering, environmental and transport systems	$75 mil.	$22 mil.	-71%
Engineering education and centers	$27 mil.	$12 mil.	-56%
Civil, mechanical, and manufacturing innovation	$80 mil.	$42 mil.	-48%
Electrical, communications and cyber systems	$36 mil.	$19 mil.	-48%
Biology	$303 mil.	$147 mil.	-52%
Biological infrastructure	$99 mil.	$32 mil.	-68%
Integrative organismal systems	$88 mil.	$34 mil.	-61%
Environmental biology	$75 mil.	$39 mil.	-49%
Molecular and cellular biosciences	$40 mil.	$37 mil.	-9%
Emerging frontiers	$801k	$5 mil.	+521%
Geosciences	$305 mil.	$204 mil.	-33%
Office of polar programs	$51 mil.	$6 mil.	-88%
Earth sciences	$78 mil.	$16 mil.	-80%
Research, innovation, synergies and education (RISE)	$11 mil.	$6 mil.	-47%
Atmospheric and geospace sciences	$63 mil.	$40 mil.	-36%
Ocean sciences	$103 mil.	$136 mil.	+33%
Computer science	$277 mil.	$192 mil.	-31%
Information & intelligent systems	$68 mil.	$27 mil.	-60%
Computer and network systems	$96 mil.	$42 mil.	-57%
Computing and communication foundations	$74 mil.	$43 mil.	-41%
Office of advanced cyberinfrastructure	$39 mil.	$80 mil.	+102%
Social sciences	$78 mil.	$62 mil.	-20%
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics	$2 mil.	$0	-100%
Multidisciplinary activities	$11 mil.	$401k	-96%
Social and economic sciences	$31 mil.	$20 mil.	-37%
Behavioral and cognitive sciences	$32 mil.	$42 mil.	+30%
Technology	$110 mil.	$92 mil.	-17%
Technology frontiers	$9k	$0	-100%
Translational impacts	$86 mil.	$44 mil.	-48%
Innovation and technology ecosystems	$24 mil.	$47 mil.	+95%
Other	$65 mil.	$47 mil.	-29%
Total	$2.1 bil.	$1 bil.	-50%

Shows the cumulative total intended award for new grants funded by the N.S.F. from Jan. 1 to May 21 of each year.

‘Total confusion’

The National Science Foundation has usually awarded half of its funds for the fiscal year by early July. In theory, this year’s funding levels could still catch up to former levels if the agency accelerates its pace of making awards over the summer.

But officials described an agency that has been thrown into chaos as it tries to navigate a new political landscape under President Trump. The agency is in the midst of a major restructuring to eliminate its 37 divisions. It has also conducted layoffs and placed pressure on its workers to resign or retire. (The restructuring and termination of employees has been paused by a court order until Friday.)

Many N.S.F. divisions do not know how much they can spend this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and this uncertainty may also be contributing to this year’s funding lag.

“There’s total confusion,” said one employee who has worked at the N.S.F. for more than a decade and is involved in determining which grants are recommended for funding. The employee, who did not want to be named out of fear of retaliation for speaking to the news media, said that the N.S.F.’s rigorous review process had been disassembled, and that political mandates had taken precedence over scientific merits when assessing grant proposals.

“There’s confusion on how much money we can spend,” the employee said. “And then there’s confusion because the processes are basically paralyzed.”

About the data

Using the N.S.F.’s awards database, we tabulated the intended award amounts for all projects funded between Jan. 1 and May 21 of each year. The award date is determined by the initial amendment date, which typically precedes the start date of the project. Intended awards reflect the amount that the N.S.F. intends to fund over the entire life of a project, which may extend multiple years beyond the year the project was awarded. All award amounts are inflation-adjusted to March 2025 dollars by using the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index.