The erosion of informal relationships with federal agencies has fundamentally altered how universities assess risk. When routine questions go unanswered and faculty fear surveillance of their collaborations, innovation suffers as researchers retreat from proposals and international partnerships.

Faculty exhaustion has deepened beyond pandemic-era stress into permanent strain. At teaching-intensive institutions, even small seed grants require navigating weeks of bureaucratic obstacles. In the humanities, major NEH program cuts and shifting donor priorities toward immediate impact have left experienced scholars struggling to sustain long-term critical work.

Counter intuitively, the most stable research leaders practice restraint rather than bold transformation. By refusing to outpace federal guidance and clearly communicating realistic institutional capacity, they’ve maintained steadier operations. Many institutions have abandoned broad, small-scale bridge funding for targeted faculty cohorts receiving intensive support, while others invest in shared proposal development resources and grant-writing consultants. Yet leaders agree the critical factor isn’t funding, it is morale.

Research administrators increasingly spend time interpreting political signals and strategically reframing work. Some train faculty to avoid problematic keywords, while others align messaging with phrases like “Make America Healthy Again”. This strategic repositioning reflects a troubling reality: research is becoming a political act.

The shift toward industry partnerships to replace declining federal support raises fundamental questions about who determines research priorities and why. Leaders fear that political instability and funding volatility will force institutions to abandon long-term research strategies for short-term survival, undermining the patient cultivation necessary for transformative scholarship.

Despite these challenges, cautious optimism persists. Cross-institutional humanities collaborations are emerging, STEM fields are organizing around AI initiatives, and some leaders embrace moral clarity by honestly communicating what they cannot support. Many focus on strengthening internal collaboration rather than external competition.

The post Mounting Pressures Facing University Research appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Given the impact of international research in my own experience, I will dedicate this blog to U.S. federal funding, and the one that will follow to foundation funding.

Where to Look for International Funding

• Grants.gov lists all current discretionary funding opportunities from the 26 agencies of the United States government. This includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and many others — in other words, all the most important public funders of research in the United States.

• Websites of each of the 26 U.S. federal agencies list their international funding opportunities. For more in-depth descriptions, I would highly recommend that you visit their sites.

• Newton’s List is a free resource open to individuals searching for international funding and organizations looking to market their grants to an international audience. Established in 2013 and co-sponsored by CRDF Global (originally named the U.S. Civilian and Research Foundation) and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), Newton’s List is a user-driven aggregate of current international funding opportunities for researchers working in natural and social science fields.

• Databases to which many agencies subscribe, such as: Pivot, GrantForward, and SPIN, are available for a fee.

Examples of International Funders

Although there are more international funding agencies than the ones I am listing below, these will give you an insight into what is currently being funded:

Department of Energy (DOE)

The DOE budget of $6.6B includes grants and contracts supporting over 25,000 researchers, including students, located at over 300 institutions and all 17 DOE national laboratories. The budget also supports a suite of 27 open-access scientific user facilities that provide tools and resources to over 35,000 users each year from universities, national laboratories, industry, and international research partners. The Office of International Affairs has primary responsibility at the Department of Energy for international cooperation in energy, science, and technology.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA carries out bilateral cooperative programs with many countries around the world. These programs allow other countries, especially emerging economies, to benefit from U.S. experience in developing appropriate and effective environmental programs. The EPA, in collaboration with a wide variety of multilateral organizations and institutions, makes funding available to protect human health and the environment.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The NIH and its Fogarty International Center invest in research on a variety of topics vital to global health. These include, but are not limited to, chronic noncommunicable diseases (cancer and diabetes), infectious diseases (Ebola, HIV/AIDS, Zika, malaria, tuberculosis), maternal and child health, neurological and mental disorders and diseases, oral and dental health, trauma and injury, tobacco control, global health security, and mentorship training. Various NIH institutes fund collaborative international research. Additionally, the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) partner on infectious disease research in the U.S. and abroad.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

The National Science Foundation’s transformative integrative approaches fill the most substantial gaps in the understanding of the diversity of life on Earth. Their research funding emphasizes novel ways to understand the synergistic roles of critical ecological and evolutionary processes. Funding reflects the mechanisms driving the origin, maintenance, and functional roles of biodiversity. Other areas include, but are not limited to, Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience, Cyber Infrastructure Training, Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide, and Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

USAID, a bilateral agency, fosters partnerships between experts in the U.S. and developing countries in order to build capacity, tackle global challenges ranging from the environment to health, and drive innovation that supports new endeavors in science and technology. In many cases, USAID coordinates programs with NGOs, multilateral organizations, and with funding agencies in the U.S. such as NSF, NIH, EPA, and USDA. One of the best ways to get funding from USAID is to initiate a strong collaboration with in-country institutions and/or communities in need of assistance.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)

NIFA, under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes the daunting challenge of meeting the world’s future food security needs. NIFA’s Center for International Programs (CIP) strives to advance global engagement by partnering with universities, among other agencies. The benefits derived from international cooperation in agriculture advance competitive grant programs that harness a myriad of research and education resources. Some examples of the programs CIP sponsors, often in coordination with NGOs, include agriculture development programs, food and nutrition, and international science and education projects.

Many other programs fund and support international cooperation and research, such as the U.S. Department of Education, Title VI Projects; the Fulbright Scholars Program; the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; and the Department of Defense.

Global cooperation is of major importance, and because of the increasing critical issues facing all of us, it is destined to become of even greater significance. What is certain, as demonstrated by the agencies mentioned in this article, is that global health, security, environment, sustainability, and infrastructure development are urgent issues that are being addressed by funding innovative and transformative research.

The post Increase Your Funding via International Partnerships appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Every donor is unique. For example, the institutes that comprise the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have dissimilar missions, and each has its own culture and requirements. The same can be said of the Department of Defense (DoD) and a myriad of other donors. Chasing the money rather than good ideas is a major flaw. Donors do not fund those focused on money, they fund those who are passionate about a good idea that aligns with their goals. Consequently, here are the five things you need to know about the language and culture of any donor before you write:

• What are the priorities of the donor? Each donor has its own priorities. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) encourages interdisciplinary programs and transformative ideas, and their definition and characteristics appear on their website. The DoD has five major foci: peacekeeping and war-fighting efforts, homeland security, evacuation and humanitarian causes. Each of these subcategories has their own mission and language. Turning to foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation seeks to understand the world’s inequities. “Whether the challenge is low-yield crops in Africa or low graduation rates in Los Angeles, we listen and learn so we can identify pressing problems that get too little attention. Then we consider whether we can make a meaningful difference with our influence and our investments, whether it is a grant or a contract.” As this demonstrates, each donor clearly addresses their funding culture via their priorities.
• What is the mission of the donor? All donors have their own missions, which give us an understanding of how they visualize their funding priorities. For example, the NSF’s mission is: “To envision a nation that capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in advancing research and education.” The NIH’s mission is: “To seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.” The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) run by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command of DoD has a similar emphasis to NIH, but its mission is to relate health research to the armed forces. Even though both NIH and DoD fund innovative ideas to combat disease, their missions and foci are different.
• What have donors funded in the past and why? One of the best insights into a funding agency is who and what they funded in the past and how much money they awarded. Federal donors list abstracts of winning proposals, along with the name of the funded institution and the Principal Investigator/Project Director. Accordingly, we can instantly know who they consider credible and their focus. Foundations will often describe what they have funded in the past on their website. Their 990pf tax forms will also show how their funds were allocated. The decisive question for you to ask is how your idea and their funding patterns match.
• What are the evaluation criteria for awarding grants? How grants are evaluated is one of the best indicators of the donor’s culture. This will include the evaluation criteria, who the evaluators are and how they are chosen. For some donors, such as NIH and NSF, reviewer selection is not a blind process as reviewers who are chosen have a deep understanding of the agency culture. In the case of foundations, it is more difficult to discern who the reviewers are, but one good way is to understand the vision of the leadership and the makeup of the board, which will be reflected in the reviewers chosen.
• What is the language of the donor? In many cases donors speak different “languages”, which are in the same family of languages. For example, the various US Department of Education Title Programs (e.g. Title III or Title VI), address different topics. Some address underrepresented groups, others international and others centers of excellence. Similarly, NSF directorates and NIH institutes have different missions, speak to different audiences, and address their vision of the world on their own terms. It is these “languages” that need to be understood, spoken, and incorporated into grants in order to give you the competitive edge.

In conclusion, submitting similar proposals to different donors is a fatal flaw. In order to succeed, we have to understand first and seek to be understood secondly.

The post 5 Things to Know About the Language and Culture of a Grant Donor appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Higher Education is also targeted for cuts, including but not limited to institutional improvement, research, and innovative technology programs. State colleges and universities, as well as minority-serving institutions, will be most impacted. The $9.2 billion in cuts represent a 13.5% drop from the U.S. Department of Education’s 2017 budget of $68.2 billion.

The following are examples of the key programs to be impacted, with deep cuts for K-12 and higher education:

• Programs for disadvantaged children to pay for school choice, including Title I funding that pays for services for low-income students, will see $1 billion in cuts to pay for a new school-choice program.
• Programs for innovation and competition will be cut in order to direct those funds to school voucher incentives. The existing program called Investing in Innovation, which is geared to assisting states experimenting with new educational approaches, would instead encourage states to create or expand school voucher programs.
• ThePublic Service Loan Program and federally subsidized student loans would be eliminated, and students would have to pay interest on the money they borrowed from the federal government, even while in school.
• Many other initiatives such as the Alaska Native Education, comprehensive and innovative literacy, enrichment and strengthening of instruction, preschool development grants, and international education and foreign language programs, both domestic and overseas, are on the chopping block for over $3 billion.
• In other cuts, low-income students and their families who depend on the federal government for help accessing healthcare, food, and shelter will see a budget cut of $193 billion in food stamp dollars. This will also have an impact on education and learning.

It is crucial that we convey to our representatives what we believe is essential to assure that our schools, students, and teachers are protected and can continue to deliver top level education and a chance at upward mobility for all students. Knowing what is in jeopardy and how it may affect you and future generations is the first step. Making your voice known to your representatives would be the next.

The post Profound Attack on US Education Funding appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.