In July, the anthropology magazine Sapiens announced that it would stop publishing by the end of 2025. The magazine’s funder, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, had decided to end funding, citing the increasing need for support from the research community and the loss of the University of Chicago Press as their publishing partner, which had provided marketing and administrative support.

“As demand for our support soars, we must direct our full resources to sustaining anthropological research and safeguarding the careers of scholars and students in truly precarious positions,” the foundation wrote in a statement explaining the decision.

The announcement left the science journalism community reeling. “There aren’t many publications that are focused on social sciences in general, or on anthropology, and to lose Sapiens — it was a blow,” said Siri Carpenter, co-founder, executive director, and editor-in-chief of The Open Notebook, a nonprofit organization and publication that covers the craft of science writing.

It also underscored the precariousness of the field. Science journalism has been fragile for many years now: Outlets likeNational Geographic and Wired have undergone layoffs. Others, like Sapiens, have shuttered. The environmental publication Hakai Magazine shut down last year when its funder, the Tula Foundation, withdrew its support to focus on research efforts, for example (the magazine has since joined forces with bioGraphic). A few years earlier, the U.K.’s Wellcome Trust pulled the plug on its long-form digital science magazine Mosaic.

As President Donald Trump’s administration cuts funding for scientific research, and pressures grow on foundations to help cover the gap, some journalists are worried that financial support may continue to dry up. Historically, funding issues have particularly hurt beats like science and health journalism and these new pressures only intensify the crisis, said Meaghan Parker, executive director of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing: “None of this is new. It just keeps getting worse.”

“There aren’t many publications that are focused on social sciences in general, or on anthropology, and to lose Sapiens — it was a blow.”

While many of these foundations say that their commitment to science journalism will continue, there is a feeling of apprehension among some reporters and editorial leaders. There is “what appears from the outside to be a lot of uncertainty on the part of foundations about how to navigate this new era that we’re in under the second Trump administration,” said Carpenter.

The calculation may come down to what a foundation’s mission is, and whether science journalism is a part of it. “In times of crisis, foundations will retreat to their core,” said Parker. “The need and the demand from their core mission is overwhelming right now. So that’s a big challenge for science philanthropy.”

---

Following the 2008 financial crash, the loss of advertising and subscription revenue dealt a big hit to the journalism industry, particularly to beats like science, health, and environment that were considered non-essential compared to others coverage areas like politics, crime, sports, and business.

In that moment, “foundations stepped up and filled the gap,” said Gary Schwitzer, a health care journalist who ran a publication called HealthNewsReview.org for 16 years. The outlet produced 3,200 news stories and news release reviews, which “never would have happened without foundations,” he said. Schwitzer’s site, facing its own financial headwinds, ceased regular publishing at the end 2018.

Philanthropic support remains crucial for many news organizations. According to 2024 analyses by the membership organization Media Impact Funders, between 2018 and 2022, the top 25 funders collectively gave $1.1 billion towards journalism, and nearly three-quarters of all 47 organizations surveyed reported an increase in journalism grantmaking. Just this August, a group of foundations committed $36.5 million to public media, seeking to make up for cuts to federal funding.

“The need and the demand from their core mission is overwhelming right now. So that’s a big challenge for science philanthropy.”

Science, health, and environmental journalism have also benefited from organizations like the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Simons Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Knight Foundation, among many others. (Undark is supported by an endowment from the Knight Foundation, and the author of this story works for The Transmitter, which is funded by the Simons Foundation; both outlets are editorially independent from their funders.) In an unpublished report that Parker produced called “Funding the Future of Environmental Journalism,” she estimated that foundations and donors provide between $20 million to $50 million annually to finance environmental journalism, and she suspects that contributions to science journalism are comparable.

For almost 20 years, these foundations “have had a remarkable impact,” Schwitzer said.

But now the ground is shifting. The Trump administration has disrupted the entire scientific funding landscape, and grant cancellations and budget cuts have left researchers searching for new sources of support. “The current moment throws a whole bunch of other wrenches into the works,” said Parker. “When they started cutting those funds, guess who got called? All the foundations.”

In light of the changing landscape, foundations “are sitting on their hands,” Parker added, having to reconsider their investments and act more frugally.

Get Our Newsletter

Sent Weekly

For the Wenner-Gren Foundation, for example, that meant directing more funding to researchers — and cutting down on journalism support. (The budget for Sapiens was $1.2 million dollars, about 10 percent of the foundation’s annual budget, according to Danilyn Rutherford, president of the Wenner-Gren Foundation.) When Sapiens lost its publishing partner in early 2025, Chip Colwell, editor-in-chief of Sapiens, reached out to more than 25 institutions to try to find a new partner. During that search, said Rutherford, “it became clear that the Trump moment was really very strongly affecting the possibility of other institutions or organizations to take it on.”

Then, in the midst of the search, the foundation received 40 percent more applications for research grants and postdoctoral fellowships that the year before. Ultimately, without a publishing partner, Wenner-Gren decided the foundation had to prioritize investing in the researchers. By the end of 2025, four full-time Sapiens employees will be out of a job.

---

Despite the increasing demand from academia, some foundations feel that they are well-resourced enough to continue their backing of science media. For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which focuses on health policy, public health research, and equity research, has an endowment that ranges around $14 billion and recently received an injection of funding from the board, said Alonzo Plough, vice president and chief science officer at the foundation. Although they have also received a flurry of researchers asking for help, “for us, it’s not going to be a zero-sum game,” Plough said. The foundation, he added, will continue to fund science communication and media.

Already, foundations have responded to shakeups in media support caused, in part, by disruptive policy changes in Washington, D.C. In February, the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University withdrew their support for the National Association of Science Writers’ annual conference, citing financial concerns following the Trump administration’s funding cuts.

Some foundations feel that they are well-resourced enough to continue their backing of science media.

Seven major foundations stepped up to cover the gap. “We wouldn’t be able to even begin to hold ScienceWriters2025 without their fast and flexible support,” Parker wrote in an email.

But “the nature of philanthropic funding is that it’s always shifting — interests and priorities are always shifting,” said Carpenter. So, leaders like her are already starting to brainstorm ways to pivot if support dwindles. For example, The Open Notebook staff is pursuing other sources of revenue, such as delivering trainings and workshops. In late September, the Climate News Task Force, of which Parker is a part, shared recommendations on how to get climate journalism funded at scale, including setting up a “matchmaking” service so donors and news outlets can find each other and a pooled fund to provide “multi-year, general operating support” for climate news outlets.

For now, the funding picture is unclear. Many funders have held back for most of the year in order to be able to adapt to the shifting demands. “The feeling is we need to be flexible to meet the next crisis,” Rutherford said.

But that may also mean there may even be an end-of-year surge in available funds that foundations need to spend, Parker pointed out. This last quarter of the year, she said, is “going to be the thing that tells the tale.”

Many are hopeful that, similar to 2008, foundations will be a lifeline for journalistic beats like science and health and help stabilize the industry. “I think philanthropy isn’t going away,” Parker said. “Philanthropy is now firmly part of the answer.”

---

*Disclosure: Claudia Lopez Lloreda has received funding from the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing and the National Association of Science Writers to cover travel to conferences. *