Our Work

The U.S. lost 20,000 scientific research jobs last year

• January 28, 2026
• Ed Gresser

FACT: The U.S. lost 20,000 scientific research jobs last year.

THE NUMBERS: Real-dollar growth in R&D spending, 2020-2023* –

* PPP basis, constant 2020 dollars. OECD Research and Development Indicators database
** 27 EU members, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland.
*** Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Turkey, Costa Rica, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Russia, Singapore, South Africa. OECD’s database does not include ASEAN members other than Singapore, the Middle East other than Israel, Africa other than South Africa, and Latin America/Caribbean apart from the four above.

WHAT THEY MEAN: 

Headline from trade journal R&D World’s 2025 forecast:

“The question is no longer if China will surpass U.S. R&D spending, but what happens next. R&D World’s 2025 Global Funding Forecast projects China reaching effective parity with the U.S. this year ($1.05T versus $1.07T in PPP terms), with a full crossover expected by 2026.”

Background:

The post-COVID pandemic years were good ones for American science. Research investment stats take a few years to work out, but the National Science Foundation estimates that in 2023 Americans spent $923 billion on research and development — the world’s highest figure by about $100 billion, and up (without adjusting for inflation) from $730 billion in 2020. This was 3.45% of American GDP, tied with Japan for the world’s fifth-highest total and behind only Israel, Korea, Taiwan, and Sweden. Employment figures are more up-to-date, and show that from December 2020 to December 2024, America’s count of working scientists rose from 788,000 to 941,000 — over 150,000, raising the total by 20%. Altogether, Americans interested in mRNA vaccines, artificial intelligence, next-generation space telescopes, autonomous cars and planes, agricultural bee vectoring, etc., could feel proud of national accomplishment and excited about the future.

The U.S. isn’t alone, of course. The OECD tries to tally spending by country, and then to convert the yuan, euros, yen, won, pounds, etc., into dollar equivalents. Their count isn’t complete — it misses India, Brazil, and generally most large developing countries — but it probably gets most of the world’s science. They find R&D investment growing by about $400 billion from 2020 through 2023. Currency conversions and inflation adjustments mean you should read these figures more as approximations than precise comparisons, and likewise, “amount of money spent” isn’t identical to “actual scientific progress”. But they’re still pretty striking:

OECD, constant PPP-basis 2020 dollars.

In sum, despite the U.S.’s pretty big push, China by itself accounted for nearly half of all world R&D growth. In the abstract, competition among leading economies to put more money into research and invent more new things — whether for national prestige, for wealth and economic growth, or a better understanding of nature and broadly shared human progress — can be a net good. The startlingly fast growth in Chinese R&D, in this sense, might be a spur for Americans to try harder. But in fact, something quite different is happening.

American private-sector research remains strong. The government’s contribution doesn’t. The Trump administration’s first year brought large-scale firing of government scientists, a shrinking total science workforce, and attempts to “institutionalize” this for the future. This began with chaotic purges of science-agency talent and research-contract cancellations during the “Department of Government Efficiency” debacle — the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Air and Space Administration staff cut by a fifth, the Centers for Disease Control by a third, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by a sixth; $2.6 billion in National Institutes of Health and $1.6 billion in National Science Foundation awards contracts canceled — and has been followed up with a more systematic attempt to disinvest from science.

Last September, the venerable American Association for the Advancement of Science reported that, altogether, the administration planned to cut federal R&D support from $197.5 billion in FY2025 to $154.0 billion in FY2026. Whether in percentages or total dollars, this would be the largest science budget cut ever — probably large enough all by itself, assuming Chinese growth has continued, to fulfil R&D World’s prediction and push the United States down into second place. Private-sector research can’t really compensate for this, as government programs weigh more toward basic research, which lacks immediate commercial return — space exploration in the 1960s, the invention of computer networks in the 1970s — but sometimes have very large long-term payoff. And in any case, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ job tallies indicate that private-sector science may be following the government down. Its count of working scientists fell by 20,000 last year, the first net loss in a decade:

OECD, constant PPP-basis 2020 dollars.

Different policies might bring some of them back. But looking further ahead, drastic slowdowns in legal immigration, presaged in this month’s decision to stop processing immigrant visas for 75 countries, would mean a structurally smaller American talent pool. The National Science Foundation reports that a quarter of American scientists, engineers, and lab techs were born abroad, including nearly 60% of the doctorate-level mathematicians, computer scientists, and engineers.

As they say, sometimes decline is a choice. But:

The Trump administration’s fecklessness doesn’t have to be “America’s choice.” At least in budgeting, the administration’s declining overall reputation appears to have emboldened Congress to reclaim its Constitutional role as the arbiter of spending. Without diving too deeply into arcane appropriations jargon — budget authority, outlays and obligation, FTEs, omnibus and minibus, etc. — Congress two weeks ago passed the “Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations” bill, which funds the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA. This restored nearly all the science investment Mr. Trump’s clan wanted to cut, and bars agencies from moving money from science to non-science offices. AAAS’s current tally foresees a cut of 3.6%, as against the nearly 25% it foresaw last summer. A pretty big step, though the bills funding the two agencies that comprise about 77% of all of the federal government’s RD funding — the Department of Defense and the badly wounded Department of Health and Human Services — aren’t yet done. Good start. Lots more to fix.

FURTHER READING

PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:

• Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
• Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
• Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
• Offer a positive alternative.

The way it ought to be:

Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report to the Truman administration, The Endless Frontier, makes the classic case for public commitment to science.

PPI’s Paying for Progress (2024), from PPI Vice President for Policy Development Ben Ritz and Laura Duffy, offers a comprehensive budget vision proposing — among lots else — much larger R&D investment and much lower tariff rates.

The way it is: 

The American Association for the Advancement of Science reports (July 2025) on Trump
administration’s science budget cuts.

Ritz and PPI Policy Analyst Alex Kilander on R&D budgeting (March 2025).

PPI Director of Health Care Policy Alix Ware on the implications for medical research and cancer treatments. (May 2025)

And back to AAAS for a more recent, and more hopeful, dashboard tracking Congressional appropriations. (January 2026)

Country comparisons

The National Science Foundation on R&D spending by country.

OECD’s Main Science and Technology Indicators.

AAAS compares the U.S., China, and the world.

And R&D World predicts that China will be the world’s top researcher in 2026.

And American Talent:

NSF on the U.S. sci/tech workforce – places, demographics, diversity, education, etc.

The Institute for International Education counts international students. In the 2024/25 academic year, 217,000 international students were studying engineering in U.S. universities, 305,000 in math and computer science, and 96,000 in physical and life sciences.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.