Psychology faces unprecedented challenges amid federal actions and funding cuts

This year’s torrent of executive orders, budget cuts, and other federal actions has not spared psychologists. Billions of dollars in research funding have been canceled or paused, while threats to revoke further funds play out publicly on campuses across the country. Principles core to the discipline of psychology—such as understanding and reducing health disparities—are suddenly controversial, leaving many uncertain about the future of their work (Connelly, E., PEN America, April 28, 2025opens in new window).

“All of higher education is under attack,” said Sue Orsillo, PhD, APA’s head of education. “But certain fields, psychology among them, face additional threats given the focus of the discipline.”

Psychology practitioners are also on uncertain ground. Deep cuts to federal health agencies—including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the Veterans Administration (VA)—have wiped out jobs and more than $12 billion in funding for mental health care, addiction treatment, and disease tracking. Additional threats to Medicare, Medicaid, and student loan repayment programs further risk public access to care and the stability of the mental health workforce.

“The impact has already been wide-ranging and across the board, from practice to education to research,” said London Breedlove, PsyD, a licensed clinical psychologist and director of professional affairs for the Washington State Psychological Association. “This has caused a tremendous amount of uncertainty, confusion, and concern, both about the future of the field and how to deal with the crises we’re facing today.”

While the scope and pace of these changes have been disorienting, psychologists are not standing still. Across the country, they’re mobilizing by educating the public about the real-world consequences of new policies, contacting legislators at the state and federal levels, and building coalitions with other scientists, educators, and health care professionals to push for research-backed decisions and continued access to services.

“Things are changing so fast that it’s been hard to respond, but if we don’t act, the threat is so much greater,” said Yale School of Public Health psychology professor Jeannette Ickovics, PhD. “It will take courage, but we as psychologists have a critical role to play in defending our programs, policies, and institutions.”

The swift and substantial cuts to scientific research have baffled many, especially given that investing in research has historically proven to be one of the best uses of tax dollars. Each dollar invested returns about $5 in economic gain, on top of social benefits such as better health and quality of life (Jones, B., The Reporter, April 5, 2022opens in new window).

Nevertheless, sweeping cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other agencies have wreaked havoc across the sciences. Topics that psychologists study are among the hardest hit. Projects focused on misinformation and health disparities have been cancelled en masse, as well as 45% of those on vaccine hesitancy (Kozlov, M., & Ryan, C., Nature News, April 10, 2025opens in new window; Scire, S., Nieman Lab, April 21, 2025opens in new window). Cuts to the Institute of Education Sciences has also halted psychologists’ research on autism and school-based bullying.

Ickovics stopped her research on urban green space and health when an environmental justice grant from NASA was abruptly terminated. In Texas, clinical psychologist Alfonso Mercado, PhD, is seeking new funding for his humanitarian work with immigrant families after federal grant offers disappeared from government websites. And after months of lab-wide training on the collection of a cutting-edge blood test for Alzheimer’s disease, psychologist Duke Han, PhD, of the University of Southern California, remains in limbo about whether third-year funds for his 5-year grant will ever arrive.

“Everything that’s happening with these federal science funding agencies has incredible trickle-down effects,” Han said. “It takes days to tear down something that has taken years to build up.”

Even a brief pause in funding can derail longitudinal projects that rely on regular data collection, jeopardizing research on early development and aging (including Han’s studies of financial decision-making and dementia), as well as therapeutic trials.

Many of the grants cut are training grants, including those that help first-generation and minority students pursue careers in the sciences. After NIH proposed a 15% cap on indirect costs—which help universities pay for lab facilities, administrative staff, and other essential resources—many schools paused graduate admissions and some even rescinded offers amid financial uncertaintyopens in new window. Now, those cuts are happening more quietly, Orsillo said.

“What’s tough is that a lot of this is under the radar,” she said. “Understandably, colleges and university departments don’t want a lot of attention on it, but we’re hearing that many are reducing the number of graduate students they’re accepting due to lost grant funding.”

That will have generational impacts, Han said, as high school and undergraduate students who may have pursued a career in psychology turn toward occupations that seem more financially viable.

Funding cuts are not the only threat to research. Key public datasets—including the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Systemopens in new window, which has monitored health care behavior and access for more than 40 years, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Systemopens in new window, and Social Vulnerability Indexopens in new window—were removed from government websites. While some were later reinstated, in part because of court orders, their futures are uncertain.

“The removal and restriction of these resources not only undermines trust in data but also trust in science overall,” said Ickovics, who is also the chair of APA’s Board of Scientific Affairs. “It’s also an indicator of how vulnerable we are to the swift and sweeping elimination of data. It can happen in an instant.”

Psychologists in higher education face further stress and uncertainty as their institutions grapple with a growing list of demands from the federal government. That started with a “Dear Colleagueopens in new window” letter in February, which ordered the breakdown of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) programs and put many university administrations at odds with their students and faculty.

“A lot of places were already pre-complying, but there’s an ambiguity to it,” said Jason Malousek, PsyD, who is the federal advocacy coordinator for the Kansas Psychological Association. “What are we complying with? Is it even legal? But if we don’t comply, can they come after us?”

Then the demands escalated to what many say are grave threatsopens in new window to academic freedom and university self-governance. With billions in federal funding on the line, the Trump administration has demanded audits of academic departments it says lack ideological diversity, as well as data on international students, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Columbia initially capitulated; Harvard resisted and filed a lawsuit against the federal government.

As of May 20, more than 60 universities were under investigationopens in new window for allegedly failing to police antisemitism on campus. Psychologists say this assault has affected the classroom environment in ways that leave both students and educators on edge.

“There’s a tremendous amount of fear and both implicit and explicit communication around what we can and can’t say,” said psychologist Riana Elyse Anderson, PhD, an associate professor at the Columbia School of Social Work who studies ways to reduce race-related stress in Black families.

For example, students at Columbia are no longer encouraged to record lectures. At Seton Hall University in New Jersey, Susan Nolan, PhD, said more and more students worry about appearing “political” in class and when submitting coursework. Despite that unease, she said it’s critical for students to learn the science behind systemic racism, how discrimination harms mental health, and the facts about gender identity.

“We teach about social justice and racial oppression in psychology, because those parts of our history have led to inequities in health,” Malousek said. “Now, experts are being told we can no longer talk about that because it’s unpatriotic or un-American.”

Educators also fear for the fate of their international students. Doctoral students in health service psychology programs, for example, must often reapply for employment authorization in order to complete their required internships. Renewal is usually smooth, but students and their advisers are concerned about delays and denials in the current political climate, Orsillo said.

Despite the ongoing mental health crisis, in March the administration wiped out about $1 billion in COVID-era SAMHSA funding for mental health care and addiction treatment. Proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the country’s biggest payer for behavioral health services, would be an even bigger blow to patients and practitioners alike. The costs would shift to states, many of which are already facing budget shortfalls (Williams, E., et al., Kaiser Family Foundation, March 24, 2025opens in new window).

For patients, these cuts mean fewer options for preventive care and early intervention—and more mental health emergencies. Without funding, services such as trauma-informed care for children or psychotherapy for adults with mood disorders are harder to access. People slip through the cracks until their conditions worsen, often showing up in emergency rooms or the criminal justice system, Breedlove said. It’s a short-term cut with long-term consequences.

“For a lot of psychologists, this is terrifying,” said Breedlove, who directs the integrated behavioral health program at the University of Washington. “We’re afraid for the patients we serve and for vulnerable individuals across the country,” she said, because many stand to lose access to essential care.

Also on the chopping block: student loan repayment programsopens in new window, which many new psychologists rely on to stay in the field. Public Service Loan Forgiveness and other programs reduce or erase federal student debt for psychologists who work in VA hospitals, community mental health centers, and other essential public service jobs after getting licensed.

“Despite the need for more mental and behavioral health providers, we’re going to see fewer individuals able to enter the field and fewer able to continue to work in the public service sector, which is already the area most hard hit,” said Molly Gabriel-Champine, PhD, a clinical psychologist who directs the behavioral medicine training program for internal medicine residents at McLaren Flint Hospital in Michigan.

Grants that support internship and postdoctoral positions in underserved areas, another critical piece of the workforce pipeline, have also abruptly ended. When Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) funding was cut with little warning, the University of Washington was forced to eliminateopens in new window three spots from its long-standing internship program.

“These grants are really important in terms of supporting psychology internships and postdocs in places like trauma centers, hospitals, and rural clinics—places that desperately need mental health services,” Breedlove said.

Hundreds of lawsuits have challenged this year’s executive actions, including the cap on indirect research costs, the removal of public health data from government websites, and the shutdown of student loan repayment programs (Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions, Just Security, 2025opens in new window).

In the meantime, psychologists who are taking action say getting accurate and up-to-date information is a top priority. The field needs clarity on what orders are active, proposed, and rescinded, Breedlove said, so that people can organize and respond.

“It can be hard to find a stable source of information, because the ground just keeps shifting,” they said.

STAT Newsopens in new window is a helpful starting point. APA and APA Services, Inc., are also tracking legislation that threatens the field, as well as actions psychologists can take, through the APA/APASI Response Center .

Advocating for science can start small. When talking with friends and colleagues, use science to explain how budget cuts and other executive actions are already causing harm. Then broaden those conversations in concentric circles, Ickovics said, to reach decision-makers in your department, institution, and discipline.

Keep in mind that university leaders are facing tough choices and aren’t likely eager to comply with executive orders but may have to make some concessions, Malousek said. Psychologists can help shape internal efforts to find creative, balanced solutions, which won’t always be as simple as whether to comply or resist.

Blogs and social media posts are one way to reach the public, said Nolan, who cowrites the Misinformation Deskopens in new window blog on Psychology Today. Another effort to help scientists reach the public is Science Homecomingopens in new window, which mobilizes researchers to write op-eds in their hometown newspapers (see Reconnecting the public with science).

“Those of us who have the privilege to speak out need to be doing it,” Nolan said. “Quite rightly, a lot of people do not feel safe right now, but those of us who have the protections that I am lucky enough to have—we need to be loud.”

Given that many do not feel safe to speak out, collective action is essential, Ickovics said. In April, more than 220 higher education leaders signed a joint American Association of Colleges and Universities statementopens in new window condemning the recent executive actions. APA also coordinated a science alliance statementopens in new window from nearly 50 scientific organizations. Several coalitions have formed, including the Coalition for Action in Higher Educationopens in new window and a new mutual defense pactopens in new window among Big Ten schools. The latter, founded by two Rutgers University professors, draws inspiration from NATO in its model of collective defense for academic freedom.

Getting involved with legislative advocacy can also start small. Join your state psychological association, sign up for federal and state action alerts, and vote at every level. Despite the alarming changes, psychologists now have a powerful opportunity to serve as ambassadors for science.

“During these uncertain times, our work in advocacy is more important than ever,” said Mercado, who is the chair of APA’s Advocacy Coordinating Committee. “Advocacy is part of our code of ethics as psychologists, and now is the time to step up, speak out, and leverage our science.”