The most vibrant research center on Earth, and we have more ties there than anywhere else.
US agencies like NSF, NOAA, and NIH—which fund collaborative research with Brazilian scientists—face significant budget reductions under Trump's efficiency agenda. Brazil's top research institutions warn that cuts will disrupt ongoing studies and collaborations, with health research particularly vulnerable given WHO funding withdrawal.
- Trump announced cuts in February aimed at saving $1 trillion from the federal budget
- NOAA laid off approximately 10% of its staff in early March
- WHO withdrawal could result in 10.75 million new HIV infections and 2.9 million deaths by 2030 if funding is not restored
- Brazilian universities conduct NIH-funded research and collaborative studies with American institutions
Trump's announced cuts to US scientific research funding threaten Brazilian institutions that depend on American partnerships, with health, climate, and pollution research facing immediate harm.
In February, Donald Trump announced he would slash American spending on scientific research, a move presented alongside billionaire Elon Musk, who now leads the Department of Government Efficiency. The goal is to trim a trillion dollars from the federal budget. The announcement landed like a shock across the global scientific community.
Brazilian researchers, speaking from some of the country's most respected institutions, described themselves as stunned. The United States has long been the world's dominant force in research funding, drawing scientists from everywhere—those who travel there to work and those who collaborate from abroad. The cuts threaten to unravel partnerships that have taken years to build.
Amâncio Jorge de Oliveira, a professor at the Institute of International Relations at the University of São Paulo and coordinator of the Center for Studies of International Negotiations, put it plainly: the U.S. is the most vibrant research center on Earth, and Brazil has more academic ties there than anywhere else. When funding dries up, Brazilian university research groups suffer directly. Olival Freire, the scientific director of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), echoed the concern: many studies financed by American entities involve Brazilian researchers or address problems that matter to Brazil. Cutting those programs will cause real damage.
Trump's orders have already reached multiple federal agencies and research institutions. The National Science Foundation, which funds research and education across science and engineering, faces reductions. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which monitors oceans, atmosphere, and coastlines, was hit hard—roughly 10 percent of its staff was let go in early March. The National Institutes of Health, America's primary engine for medical research funding, is also affected. Many NIH-funded studies involve Brazilian collaboration or are conducted directly by Brazilian teams. The Federal University of Bahia's medical school, for instance, runs research financed by the NIH, works jointly with American teams, and conducts independent studies with Brazilian researchers. Freire acknowledged that the full scope of the cuts remains unclear, but all these projects now sit under threat.
On his first day back in office in January, Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the World Health Organization, arguing the country was paying a disproportionate share. America is the largest donor to the U.N.'s public health agency. New research suggests eight countries could run out of HIV treatment supplies within months without American funding. A study published in The Lancet HIV on March 26 estimates that if U.S. financing is not restored or replaced, 10.75 million new HIV infections and 2.9 million deaths will occur by 2030.
Paulo Buss, director of the Pan American Health Organization and WHO Collaborating Center for Global Health Diplomacy and South-South Cooperation at Fiocruz, sees a pattern: Trump has chosen American isolationism and the dismantling of globalization, abandoning the American tradition of supporting peace, security, human rights, and development. He is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the Human Rights Council, and ordering every U.N. agency and program to be scrutinized for alignment with his thinking. These are not decisions made by Congress or a collective of White House leadership. They are one man saying no to what he disagrees with.
Freire believes it is too early to measure the full damage, but health, climate, and pollution research will suffer harm in the very short term. Scientists worry the cuts will ripple beyond government agencies to private foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which regularly collaborates with Brazil on projects like artificial intelligence applications in health. The impact is not confined to American science—it will touch Brazilian science and Brazilian society.
Amâncio Jorge de Oliveira, while lamenting the situation, sees an opening. This is the moment for Brazil to have a serious conversation about strengthening partnerships with other scientific centers. Without American funding, institutions will need to unite to keep research moving forward. There are risks and difficult moments ahead, he said, but also opportunities for new partnerships and a chance for Brazilian universities to take a leading role. They must prepare for this world, and Brazil needs specific policies to respond.
Citas Notables
The U.S. is the most vibrant research center on Earth, and Brazil has more academic ties there than anywhere else. When funding dries up, Brazilian university research groups suffer directly.— Amâncio Jorge de Oliveira, Institute of International Relations, University of São Paulo
Many studies financed by American entities involve Brazilian researchers or address problems that matter to Brazil. Cutting those programs will cause real damage.— Olival Freire, Scientific Director, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does American funding matter so much to Brazilian research? Can't Brazil fund its own science?
Brazil does fund science, but the U.S. has been the dominant engine globally for decades. When you're studying something like HIV treatment or climate patterns, the best equipment, the largest datasets, the most advanced labs—many are in America. Losing access to that network doesn't just mean losing money. It means losing collaboration, losing scale, losing the ability to do certain kinds of work at all.
You mentioned the NIH and NOAA specifically. What kind of research are we talking about?
Medical research, mostly. Teams at Brazilian universities are running studies on infectious diseases, working with American counterparts on shared problems. NOAA funds climate and ocean research—Brazil has the Amazon and the Atlantic, so that work is directly relevant here. When those funding streams stop, the research stops.
The WHO withdrawal seems separate from the science cuts. Are they connected?
They're part of the same logic. Trump sees American money flowing out to international institutions and wants to stop it. The WHO funds health programs in developing countries. Eight countries could lose HIV treatment supplies. That's not abstract—that's people dying from a preventable disease because the funding disappeared.
What does Brazil do now?
That's the real question. Freire and Oliveira both say it's too early to know the full damage, but they're already thinking about alternatives. Maybe partnerships with Europe, maybe with other Latin American countries, maybe strengthening domestic capacity. But that takes time and money Brazil may not have.
Is there any chance the U.S. reverses course?
Unlikely in the near term. These are executive orders from Trump himself, not congressional decisions. He's shown he's willing to act unilaterally on these things. The Brazilian scientific community is bracing for a long disruption.
What happens to the researchers in the middle of projects right now?
That's the human cost nobody's talking about enough. A team at the Federal University of Bahia might be halfway through an NIH-funded study. Suddenly the money stops. Do they finish it with their own resources? Do they abandon it? Do they try to find new funding? The uncertainty alone is paralyzing.