> NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. No clu

> NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. No clue about the NIH. NASA is similarly not in as dire of a situation from the looks of it. Potentially, but there has already been a lot of meddling with the budget that the NSF director gets to put to use. Basically every year congress tries to ensure that the NSF stops spending money on climate change and 'social sciences'. There has been broad pressure to cede to congress's demands that the stop funding anything that they disagree with as well as general budget cuts. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battle-over-science-funding-gets-fiercer-in-u-s-congress/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battle-over-scien... The NIH/CDC have been repeatedly denied funding for Zika and Ebola research. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-and-niaid-officials-congress-is-showing-how-not-to-fight-the-zika-virus/2016/08/31/c2efc146-6f7f-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-and-niaid-offici... NASA will definitely have all of their climate research gutted, and given Trump's relationship with Lamar Smith and Jeff Sessions, I'd expect decent funding toward big projects that favor Alabama and Texas sites.