This time last year, science watchers were wondering what the start of President Donald Trump’s second term would mean for scientists in labs, field sites and clinics. It didn’t take long to find out that science was in for a bumpy ride.

Throughout 2025, our science + technology team edited what feels like a countless number of stories that tried to explain and contextualize the flurry of executive orders, agency appointments and funding cuts that filled the news. Our goal was to dig behind the talking points and figure out what various administration actions would mean for researchers on the ground – and everyone who lives in the United States. Articles like one by Louisiana State University psychologist H. Colleen Sinclair, who described what research that focuses on disparities and equity really looks like, peeled back the jargon and focused on facts.

Our team realized that 2025 was a critical time for the public to understand how research actually works. Considering the news was full of unfamiliar terms, such as indirect costs and rescissions, we published articles about how scientists apply for and receive grants, what it means to replicate a study, and why academic journals rely on peer review.

We wound down this tumultuous year with Kenneth Evans, a policy scholar at Rice University, taking a look back at how the Trump White House has shaken the very foundations of American science. And we compiled personal accounts from six scientists about what losing their research funding has meant for them – and their determination not to give up on work that can make our world healthier, safer and more fair.

In these researchers’ resolve, I see hope for the year ahead.

[ Science from the scientists themselves. Sign up for our weekly science email newsletter. ]