Federal government to lose more than 10,000 STEM PhD scientists in 2025 |
The US federal government faced one of the most severe losses of scientific expertise in its modern history in 2025, when more than 10,000 STEM PhD scientists left federal agencies in a single year. An analysis published by Science, based on workforce data from the US Office of Personnel Management, found that 10,109 doctoral-level scientists have dropped out of government service since Donald Trump took office. The departures were driven by retirements, resignations, and eliminated positions, resulting in a 14% decline in the federal STEM PhD workforce, the largest annual decline ever recorded.
Science data reveals historic PhD exodus
According to Science, the pace of departures is much higher than hiring across 14 research-intensive agencies, with about eleven scientists leaving for every one appointed. Analysts warn that this imbalance is particularly harmful because federal science agencies rely heavily on long-term experts to manage grants, oversee regulatory science, and guide long-term research strategies. The scale of the losses has raised concerns about whether agencies can maintain continuity in critical scientific programmes. Its impact has been most pronounced on central institutions of the American research ecosystem. The National Institutes of Health recorded the biggest loss, with more than 1,100 PhD scientists gone in 2025. The National Science Foundation lost more than 200 doctoral scientists, while agencies including NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also experienced sharp declines. Many of those who left took on senior roles that required years of specialised expertise.
Experts warn of permanent damage to US science capability
The reaction from leading voices in the scientific community has been harsh. Holden Thorpe, former editor-in-chief of Science and vice chancellor for research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, called the figures surprising and warned that the loss is a serious blow to the country’s ability to conduct basic research and respond effectively to public health and environmental challenges. He said that at a time when global competition is intensifying, the erosion of federal scientific expertise risks undermining innovation. Concerns have also been expressed in the broader research ecosystem. Dr Jane Harrington, a biomedical scientist and higher education advocate, said she has a hard time imagining what the higher education landscape will look like by 2030, especially amid cuts to National Science Foundation programmes. He warned that the loss of the support ecosystem for scientific research would be felt for generations.
Why are scientists leaving federal service?
While many departures were formally recorded as retirement or voluntary resignation, researchers and policy analysts point to deeper structural reasons. Prolonged budget uncertainty, delays in approving appointments, and agency reorganisation have created instability in the federal science workforce. Changes in policy priorities and concerns about the long-term security of federal research careers have also impacted morale, leading experienced scientists to leave earlier than planned or seek opportunities outside the government.
Experience and institutional knowledge lost
Science estimates that the departures represent more than 106,000 cumulative years of scientific experience lost in one year, almost three times the figure recorded in 2024. Experts warn that this loss of institutional memory cannot be quickly replaced, even if hiring resumes are maintained, because it includes deep familiarity with regulatory systems, grant oversight processes, and long-running research initiatives that shape national science policy.
Wider implications for research and innovation
The exodus has reignited debate over the long-term consequences for the American research enterprise. Federal investment in science has historically delivered strong economic returns, with numerous studies showing that every dollar spent generates more than two dollars in macroeconomic benefits. Critics argue that the continued loss of senior scientific talent risks undermining that comeback by hollowing out the institutions responsible for setting the research agenda and protecting scientific standards. Although some policymakers argue that the workforce is adjusting after years of expansion, many scientists see the scale and pace of the departures as a warning sign. As global competition for STEM talent intensifies, they say funding stability, clear career paths, and restoring trust in federal research institutions will be essential to preventing a long-term erosion of America’s scientific base.
