March for Science
The March for Science was a series of international protests initiated on April 22, 2017—Earth Day—primarily in Washington, D.C., where an estimated 500,000 participants gathered to advocate for robust public funding of scientific research, evidence-based policymaking, and resistance to perceived encroachments on scientific autonomy by the incoming Trump administration, including proposed budget cuts to agencies like the EPA and NIH.[1][2] Organized via social media by a coalition of scientists, educators, and activists, the event expanded to over 600 satellite marches worldwide, emphasizing science's role in informing policy on issues like climate change and public health.[2][3] While proponents hailed the marches as a catalyst for increased civic engagement among scientists—surveys indicated that around 90% of participants viewed it as their first foray into [science advocacy](/page/science advocacy)—the movement faced criticism for veering into partisan territory, with organizers' emphasis on diversity and inclusion statements alienating some who saw it as injecting ideological priorities over apolitical empiricism.[3][4][5] Detractors, including in peer-reviewed commentary, argued that the event promoted a mythologized view of science as inherently progressive and elite, potentially undermining its self-correcting, skeptical ethos by aligning it with cultural signaling rather than rigorous inquiry.[6][7] Subsequent annual events dwindled in scale, evolving into broader advocacy networks focused on policy advocacy and public outreach, though measurable policy impacts remained limited amid ongoing debates over science's institutional politicization.[4][8]Historical and Political Context
Pre-2016 Scientific Funding and Policy Trends
Federal research and development (R&D) funding in the United States expanded substantially from the 1990s through 2015, with total federal obligations for R&D rising from $98.5 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2000 to $134.8 billion in FY2015 in current dollars, reflecting sustained bipartisan commitment amid economic growth and competing priorities.[9] Adjusted for inflation, nondefense R&D funding increased by approximately 10% in real terms between FY2000 and FY2010 before stabilizing, driven by investments in health, energy, and basic research across administrations.[10] These trends contrasted with occasional criticisms from fiscal conservatives advocating restraint, yet overall allocations prioritized scientific advancement without systemic cuts. Under President Bill Clinton, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget doubled from roughly $10.9 billion in FY1993 to $20.3 billion in FY2000, fueled by congressional appropriations during federal surpluses and aimed at accelerating biomedical breakthroughs.[11] This expansion, supported by both parties, marked a "golden age" for medical research funding, with annual real increases averaging over 10% in the late 1990s.[12] President George W. Bush continued NIH growth, with the budget reaching $27.2 billion in FY2003 and further rising to $28.6 billion in FY2004, while directing over $170 million toward non-embryonic stem cell research to bypass ethical concerns limiting federal support for new embryonic lines created after August 9, 2001.[13] These policies balanced funding expansion with restrictions, prompting debates over whether ethical constraints unduly politicized science allocation. The Obama administration sustained R&D momentum, with NIH appropriations climbing to $30.9 billion in FY2015 and nondefense R&D obligations hitting peaks as a share of federal outlays not seen since the 1980s.[9] However, policy disputes intensified over the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) use of climate models in regulations, such as the 2009 endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act that justified greenhouse gas controls, which conservatives argued exaggerated benefits while ignoring model uncertainties and economic costs exceeding $200 billion annually.[14] Earlier precedents included Republican-led challenges to perceived "junk science" in 1990s EPA rules on air toxics and pesticides, where industry and think tanks contended agencies favored advocacy-driven data over rigorous validation, foreshadowing broader skepticism toward regulatory science.[15] Such tensions underscored that politicization of funding and policy—through ethical vetoes, budgetary trade-offs, and interpretive disputes over evidence—predated 2016, rooted in longstanding ideological divides over government's role in directing scientific priorities.Trump Administration's Early Actions and Rhetoric
On January 20, 2017, the day of President Trump's inauguration, federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received directives to halt external communications, new contracts, grants, and payments pending further review by incoming political appointees.[16] [17] These pauses, affecting EPA press releases and scientific data dissemination, were part of a broader transition protocol but fueled immediate fears of data suppression, though no widespread deletions occurred and some planned website content reviews on climate topics were suspended.[18] [19] On January 23, 2017, Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy—commonly termed the global gag rule—barring U.S. foreign aid to nongovernmental organizations that provide, promote, or refer for abortions, applying it to nearly all global health assistance totaling about $8.8 billion annually.[20] [21] Critics, including reproductive health advocates, contended this restricted evidence-based family planning and related research abroad, though the policy targeted abortion advocacy rather than core scientific inquiry.[22] The Senate confirmed Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017, by a 52-46 vote.[23] [24] As Oklahoma's former Attorney General, Pruitt had initiated 14 lawsuits against the EPA, often challenging regulations on air quality and greenhouse gases, and questioned the dominant scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change's severity.[25] Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint, outlined in March 2017 and detailed in May, proposed substantial reductions to nondefense science programs, including an 18-21% cut to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from $34.1 billion to $26.9 billion, nearly 20% to the Department of Energy's Office of Science ($900 million reduction), and about 40% to EPA's Science and Technology account.[26] [27] [28] Congress, however, largely overrode these proposals through appropriations, boosting NIH funding to $39.2 billion (a 15% increase over FY2017) and sustaining overall federal R&D obligations at rising levels, reaching approximately $160 billion by FY2020 despite subsequent annual requests for trims.[9] [29] Trump's public rhetoric consistently downplayed climate change, repeatedly labeling it a "hoax" in pre-presidential statements and interviews, attributing variations to natural cycles rather than human activity.[30] [31] On June 1, 2017, he announced the U.S. intent to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing it imposed unfair economic disadvantages on American workers and industries without commensurate global benefits, with formal exit delayed until November 2020 under treaty terms.[32] [33]Origins and Organization
Conception and Initial Momentum
The conception of the March for Science emerged from grassroots online discussions in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's January 20, 2017, inauguration, amid concerns over his administration's early directives to remove climate change references from government websites.[34] A Reddit user commented on January 24, 2017, proposing a "Scientists' March on Washington" modeled after the Women's March of January 21, framing it as a response to perceived threats to empirical evidence and "alternative facts"—a phrase associated with Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer.[34] This casual suggestion, inspired by a Vice article highlighting federal website alterations, quickly amplified through social media, with a Facebook event page created the next day, January 25, and subreddits like r/MarchForScience and r/ScientistsMarch forming concurrently to coordinate interest.[35][36] Initial momentum built rapidly as the idea spread via Twitter and Facebook, attracting scientists, educators, and advocates who viewed the proposal as a bulwark against politicized skepticism of scientific consensus, particularly on environmental issues.[35] By late January, the Facebook group had garnered thousands of members, prompting informal volunteers like postdoctoral researcher Jonathan Berman to step in for organization.[34] Organizers soon shifted the planned date from an unspecified spring slot to Earth Day, April 22, 2017, to leverage its symbolic resonance with environmental advocacy and align with global awareness of science's role in policy, though this choice intensified perceptions of a focus on climate-related grievances.[37] From the outset, tensions arose over the march's non-partisan aspirations versus its evident roots in opposition to Trump-era policies, with critics arguing that tying science advocacy to electoral politics risked undermining credibility among skeptics of federal overreach.[38] Early online debates highlighted conflicts between emphasizing empirical rigor and incorporating broader inclusivity goals, such as diversity in STEM fields, which some participants pushed to include as core tenets despite initial framing centered on defending evidence-based decision-making.[39] Organizers maintained the event's neutrality, but the partisan trigger—evident in references to inauguration-day actions—fueled skepticism that it prioritized ideological mobilization over universal scientific principles.[40]Leadership Structure and Planning Process
The March for Science was coordinated by a volunteer-led steering committee that emerged from an initial Facebook group created in early 2017, evolving into a decentralized network of partner organizations responsible for national and satellite events.[41] A 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity, March for Science Inc., was formally established to oversee fiscal and legal aspects, filing for tax-exempt status amid rapid growth in volunteer involvement.[42] The steering committee comprised individuals with backgrounds in science communication, academia, and advocacy, including co-organizers like Caroline Weinberg, though operational decisions were distributed across local chapters to facilitate over 600 affiliated events worldwide on April 22, 2017.[41][43] Planning emphasized grassroots logistics, with the national team securing permits for the Washington, D.C., march through a partnership with the Earth Day Network, which held existing rights to the National Mall.[44] Satellite events relied on local volunteers for route coordination, safety protocols, and vendor arrangements, reflecting a structure skewed toward participants from urban academic hubs where scientific networks were densest. Funding was primarily sourced through online crowdfunding platforms and individual donations, enabling volunteer stipends, promotional materials, and legal fees without reliance on government grants.[45] Surveys of participants revealed a demographic and professional composition dominated by academics and researchers in biology, medical sciences (comprising 50% of respondents), and earth sciences, with limited involvement from engineering or industry professionals, underscoring the event's appeal within specific subsets of the scientific community.[46] This volunteer-driven model, while enabling broad geographic reach, highlighted operational challenges in balancing centralized oversight with autonomous local execution, particularly in permit approvals and crowd management across diverse regulatory environments.[45]Stated Goals and Core Principles
The March for Science organizers defined their mission as affirming science's essential role in advancing human welfare through empirical inquiry and its application to policy, with a commitment to robust funding, open communication, and evidence-driven decision-making.[47][48] This framework positioned science not merely as an academic pursuit but as a foundational pillar for equitable societal progress, emphasizing its capacity to address challenges via verifiable data rather than ideological assertion.[49] At the core of the initiative were six explicitly stated principles: science that serves the common good; evidence-based policy and regulations in the public interest; cutting-edge scientific research and integrity; diversity and inclusion in science; science education and literacy; and open access to scientific data and research.[43][50] These tenets sought to prioritize outcomes where scientific findings directly inform practical benefits, such as stable federal funding for research—estimated at over $30 billion annually for agencies like the National Science Foundation prior to 2017—and unrestricted data sharing to enable reproducible validation of results.[51] The focus on education and literacy aimed to combat misinformation by fostering public discernment grounded in methodological rigor, while integrity principles underscored adherence to peer-reviewed standards over politically expedient alterations.[52] Organizers repeatedly asserted the movement's nonpartisan nature, framing it as a defense of universal empirical standards applicable across governance ideologies, rather than an endorsement of any party.[53][54] Yet the principles' integration of diversity and inclusion—encompassing efforts to address underrepresentation in STEM fields, where women and certain ethnic minorities comprised less than 30% of the workforce in 2016—extended into intersectional dimensions, linking scientific advancement to equity imperatives that inherently engaged social and cultural variables beyond pure evidentiary metrics.[43][51] This breadth highlighted a tension: while core empirical foci like policy evidence and data openness aligned with first-principles demands for falsifiability and utility, the equity emphasis risked conflating descriptive demographics with causal drivers of scientific output, absent direct empirical linkages in the stated framework.[50]The 2017 Events
Domestic Marches and Turnout
The flagship March for Science event took place in Washington, D.C., on April 22, 2017, with organizers estimating attendance at approximately 100,000 participants based on aerial imagery analysis and crowd density calculations compared to known venue capacities.[55][56] Satellite marches and rallies occurred in hundreds of U.S. cities, contributing to an overall domestic turnout estimated by participants and observers in the range of several hundred thousand.[57][58] Participants commonly wore lab coats as a symbolic uniform and carried signs highlighting themes such as "There are no alternative facts" and equating scientific evidence with resistance to policy decisions viewed as dismissive of empirical data.[59][60] The D.C. march route followed Constitution Avenue NW from near the Lincoln Memorial toward the U.S. Capitol, necessitating rolling road closures from 18th Street NW to 3rd Street NW between approximately 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the procession.[61][62] Held concurrently with Earth Day observances, the marches were coordinated with the Earth Day Network to align with broader environmental advocacy efforts on that date.[63][64] No arrests or significant incidents were reported across the domestic events, reflecting orderly conduct under permitted assemblies.[65]International Extensions
The March for Science on April 22, 2017, expanded internationally through coordinated solidarity events in over 600 cities spanning all seven continents, with organizers estimating a global participation of more than 1 million people outside the primary U.S. gatherings.[66][58] These events were organized by local chapters in communication with the central U.S.-based hub, allowing autonomy in adapting themes to regional contexts while emphasizing shared commitments to evidence-based policymaking and resistance to perceived political encroachments on scientific integrity.[67] Notable turnouts included approximately 11,000 participants in Berlin, where demonstrators underscored the role of science in informing public policy amid broader European debates on research prioritization.[68] In London, thousands rallied starting from the Science Museum, voicing apprehensions over potential disruptions to collaborative EU-funded research projects in light of Brexit proceedings.[69] Toronto saw up to 3,000 attendees converge at Queen's Park, focusing on the need for sustained public investment in scientific literacy and innovation independent of partisan influences.[70] Australian events, held in multiple cities including Sydney and Melbourne, drew thousands advocating for transparent scientific communication and policies grounded in empirical data, including critiques of governmental hesitancy on evidence supporting renewable energy transitions.[71] While unified by opposition to anti-science rhetoric, international extensions reflected localized drivers, such as funding uncertainties from geopolitical shifts in Europe and policy disputes over climate and resource management elsewhere, distinguishing them from the U.S.-centric focus on federal budget proposals.[72] This decentralized structure enabled broader resonance but also highlighted variances in participant motivations, with some events prioritizing global environmental advocacy aligned with Earth Day timing over strictly domestic political critiques.[73]Activities, Speakers, and Themes
The central activities of the March for Science on April 22, 2017, consisted of pre-march rallies with speeches and teach-ins, succeeded by processions through urban areas where participants displayed placards and vocalized support for scientific principles. In Washington, D.C., the flagship event featured a stage program with addresses from prominent figures, including Bill Nye, who as honorary co-chair highlighted science's universal applicability to policy and human progress, asserting that it underpins advancements in health, safety, and economy.[74][75] Teach-ins preceding the rally focused on science communication strategies and civic techniques for addressing local environmental challenges, aiming to equip attendees with tools for policy influence beyond mere exposition of facts.[76][77] Marchers employed chants that fused endorsements of empirical methods with pointed critiques of contemporary governance, such as "Hey hey, ho ho, alternative facts have got to go," alluding to the Trump administration's handling of data on climate and health.[78] Placards similarly merged defenses of inquiry—"There is no Planet B"—with rebuttals to politicization claims, like "Science is not a liberal conspiracy," underscoring a blend of apolitical ideals with reactive advocacy that amplified science's public profile while inviting perceptions of alignment with opposition politics.[1][63] Recurring motifs stressed evidence-driven governance and resilience against funding reductions, yet incorporated equity in scientific pursuits, with organizers forming a diversity committee to feature speakers from underrepresented demographics, including those affiliated with groups like SACNAS promoting Chicanos, Hispanics, and Native Americans in STEM.[79][80] Such efforts sought broader participation but encountered internal rebukes for preliminary oversights in inclusive framing, potentially diluting focus on meritocratic scientific practice in favor of identity considerations.[81][80]Contemporary Reception
Endorsements and Positive Responses
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) endorsed the March for Science in February 2017, partnering with organizers to emphasize evidence-based policymaking and marking a shift toward institutional activism.[82] [83] By mid-March 2017, over 100 scientific organizations had followed suit, including the American Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society, and groups like 500 Women Scientists, providing logistical and legitimacy support while some conditioned endorsement on nonpartisan framing.[84] [85] Nature journal voiced support in an April 13, 2017, editorial, highlighting the event's rapid organization into over 500 global demonstrations as a response to threats against scientific integrity.[86] Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson contributed indirectly through a widely shared April 19, 2017, video on "Science in America," urging recognition of science's foundational role in progress amid policy skepticism, which aligned with march themes though he later expressed reservations about needing to "march for" science.[87] A May 2017 Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults found partisan divides in reception, with 68% of Democrats viewing the marches positively as advancing scientists' causes compared to 25% of Republicans, who more often saw no impact or potential harm to public support for science.[88] [89] Among scientists, participation interest was mixed; a March-April 2017 survey of over 1,000 March for Science Facebook group members (largely self-identified researchers) showed strong intent to attend, but broader researcher debates revealed hesitancy, with concerns over perceived partisanship deterring an estimated 40-50% from joining to preserve scientific neutrality.[90] [91] Post-event surveys of participants indicated self-reported boosts in civic engagement, including increased STEM volunteering and advocacy; 88% of U.S. attendees described it as their first science-related protest, correlating with subsequent actions like signing petitions for research funding, though exact signature volumes varied and lacked centralized tracking.[92]Media Portrayals and Public Polling Data
Mainstream media coverage of the March for Science on April 22, 2017, was largely favorable, presenting the event as a vital stand for evidence-based policymaking amid perceived assaults on scientific funding and autonomy by the Trump administration. The New York Times reported on scientists "feeling under siege" and marching against administration policies, emphasizing turnout in Washington, D.C., and satellite events.[63] CNN similarly depicted global participation as a unified Earth Day affirmation of science's role in society, with visuals of crowds in over 600 cities underscoring the scale.[73] Such portrayals aligned with institutional tendencies toward sympathetic framing of progressive activism, though they often prioritized crowd estimates and symbolic imagery over deeper scrutiny of the march's stated nonpartisan aims. Conservative outlets countered with skepticism, viewing the march as an extension of anti-Trump resistance rather than a neutral advocacy for science. National Review described it as the left "hijacking science" by imposing an "intellectual gloss" on elite mobilization within culture wars, arguing it conflated policy disagreements with existential threats to inquiry.[93] This perspective highlighted internal debates over inclusivity and social justice themes, which some saw as diluting scientific focus, reflecting broader conservative wariness of academia's alignment with liberal causes. Public opinion polls conducted shortly after the event revealed no surge in broad support or trust in science, but rather accentuated partisan fissures, challenging claims of unifying acclaim. A Pew Research Center survey from May 2017 found Americans split on the protests' efficacy, with 51% saying they would help scientists' causes compared to 35% who believed they would not; Democrats overwhelmingly endorsed the view (67%) while Republicans largely rejected it (20%), indicative of reinforced ideological divides rather than cross-aisle consensus.[88] Experimental research published in 2018 further demonstrated a polarizing effect, where exposure to march information increased warmth toward scientists among liberals but decreased it among conservatives, widening attitudinal gaps.[94] Gallup's annual confidence in institutions poll, released in June 2017, showed overall U.S. institutional trust rising modestly to 35% from 32% in 2016—driven largely by Republican upticks in non-science sectors like the military—without evidencing a distinct boost attributable to the march in scientific confidence metrics.[95] A dedicated survey of march participants and followers reported high internal positivity (91% among U.S. scientists), yet external polling underscored limited penetration beyond progressive demographics.[96] These data suggest the event amplified existing sympathies without converting skeptics, consistent with patterns of activism entrenching rather than bridging divides.Criticisms and Controversies
Claims of Inherent Partisanship
Critics, including scientists and commentators from conservative and centrist viewpoints, contended that the March for Science inherently fused scientific advocacy with opposition to the Trump administration, thereby associating science with Democratic political priorities.[97][98] The event's official website emphasized resistance to "post-truth" politics and policies undermining evidence-based decision-making, phrasing widely seen as implicitly critiquing President Trump's approach to issues like climate change and immigration enforcement.[6] Organizer statements, such as those highlighting the march as a response to the 2017 inauguration and subsequent executive actions, reinforced perceptions of targeted partisanship rather than neutral defense of scientific integrity.[99] Surveys of participants underscored this alignment, with one study of over 200 attendees finding that 72% identified as Democrats, 11% as Independents, and only 2.5% as Republicans, indicating a predominantly left-leaning demographic.[100] Event signage and chants, including references to Trump-era policies, further evidenced this tilt, as reported by observers who noted the prevalence of partisan symbols over purely scientific messaging.[101] Congressional engagement reflected similar dynamics, with Democratic members prominently endorsing the march while Republican participation remained minimal, attributed to criticisms of the event's focus on administration policies.[101] Comparisons to historical protests, such as the ACT UP AIDS marches of the 1980s and 1990s, highlighted distinctions: those efforts centered on specific funding and policy advocacy without framing the entirety of medical science as oppositional to governing authorities.[97] In contrast, the March for Science's branding positioned empirical inquiry itself against perceived anti-science governance, potentially eroding bipartisan trust in scientific institutions. Commentators posited a counterfactual scenario: under a Democratic administration like Obama's, an analogous march critiquing policies on topics such as genetically modified organisms or nuclear energy would likely be dismissed by Republicans as ideologically driven, mirroring the partisan reception faced by the 2017 events.[102][94]Risks of Politicizing Scientific Inquiry
The March for Science's alignment with opposition to the Trump administration's policies on issues like climate regulation and federal funding fostered perceptions of scientific advocacy as inherently partisan, exacerbating divisions in public trust. An analysis of panel survey data spanning the event revealed that liberals' favorability toward scientists increased, while conservatives' attitudes shifted negatively, with the latter group viewing scientists as more ideologically biased post-march.[94] This polarization effect stemmed from conservatives interpreting the march's rhetoric—such as equating policy skepticism with anti-science denialism—as evidence of scientists prioritizing activism over objectivity.[94] Such politicization contravenes core principles of scientific ethos, particularly the Mertonian norm of disinterestedness, which posits that inquiry must be driven by empirical pursuit rather than external agendas to maintain institutional legitimacy.[103] When scientists publicly rally against specific administrations or policies, it risks portraying the enterprise as a political tool, eroding its claim to neutrality and inviting skepticism from audiences who perceive selective outrage—such as muted responses to prior administrations' science policy shifts. This dynamic can engender a backlash where genuine methodological critiques, like debates over climate model sensitivities or the net economic costs of renewable transitions supported by econometric analyses, are dismissed as partisan rather than evidence-based.[94] Over time, repeated advocacy episodes heighten the "boy who cried wolf" hazard, desensitizing the public to authentic threats against scientific integrity, such as funding cuts or regulatory overreach, by framing routine political disagreements as existential crises. Empirical trends in trust data post-2017 corroborate this, showing sustained conservative divergence in confidence toward scientific institutions amid heightened activist visibility.[104] Consequently, the march illustrated how breaching norms of organized skepticism—by sidelining intra-field dissent on topics like green energy fiscal impacts—may prioritize short-term mobilization over long-term epistemic authority, ultimately hindering broad societal reliance on scientific consensus.[103]Organizational and Logistical Shortcomings
In October 2017, an open letter signed by over 100 current and former volunteers accused the March for Science's national leadership of fostering a toxic work environment, characterized by poor communication, hierarchical decision-making, and inadequate responsiveness to volunteer concerns.[105] [106] The letter, initiated by former communications lead Aaron Huertas, highlighted instances of ignored input from volunteers on logistical planning and forum moderation, contributing to disorganization in coordinating satellite events.[105] These internal tensions led to multiple high-profile resignations, including those of core organizers Jacquelyn Gill and Stephani Page in April 2017, who cited frustrations with leadership's lack of direction and transparency.[105] Additionally, approximately half of the diversity and inclusion committee stepped down before the main event, alleging that their recommendations on equitable representation were dismissed, which exacerbated perceptions of biased internal hiring and prioritization processes that favored certain perspectives over broad input.[105] Financial opacity further compounded these issues, as volunteers reported repeated unsuccessful requests for detailed budget breakdowns despite the organization raising significant funds through donations and merchandise sales post-event.[105] The group's delayed pursuit of formal 501(c)(3) non-profit status, only formalized in late 2017 amid these complaints, raised concerns about compliance with tax-exempt requirements and potential risks from perceived political activities, hindering structured fund allocation and long-term planning.[106][107]Measured Impact and Outcomes
Effects on Federal Science Funding
The Trump administration's annual budget proposals from fiscal year (FY) 2018 to FY 2020 consistently sought reductions in federal science funding, including a 11% cut to the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget for FY 2018 (from $7.472 billion in FY 2017 to a proposed $6.653 billion), an 11.6% cut for FY 2020 (to $7.141 billion), and similar trims to agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[108][109] However, congressional appropriations overridden these requests through bipartisan negotiations, resulting in enacted NSF funding of $7.767 billion for FY 2018 (a 4% increase over FY 2017), $8.075 billion for FY 2019 (another 4% rise), and $8.279 billion for FY 2020 (2.5% growth).[110][111] Overall federal nondefense R&D funding followed suit, rising approximately 6% in real terms by FY 2020 to around $164 billion, driven by appropriations bills that rejected proposed cuts.| Fiscal Year | President's Request (NSF, billions) | Enacted Appropriation (NSF, billions) | % Change from Prior Year (Enacted) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $6.653 | $7.767 | +4% |
| 2019 | $7.424 | $8.075 | +4% |
| 2020 | $7.141 | $8.279 | +2.5% |