A recent eight-week Antarctic expedition, concluding Thursday, brought together nearly 40 international scientists. Strikingly, a quarter of these researchers were American.
However, their critical investigations were primarily sustained by private philanthropic groups, with no significant funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the leading government agency for non-medical scientific endeavors.
The research vessel itself, the Araon, is South Korean. This comes after the Trump administration, just last year, retired the Nathaniel B. Palmer, America’s sole icebreaker dedicated to Antarctic research. This move has left U.S. scientists without a crucial resource for exploring the icy continent.
“I’m genuinely disappointed,” expressed David Holland, a New York University polar scientist who participated in the expedition, which targeted Antarctica’s most formidable glacier. “I’ve grown accustomed to the challenges of Antarctic fieldwork, but this level of disappointment with the NSF feels different.”
This shift contrasts sharply with previous years when the NSF collaborated with Britain to fund numerous research trips to the Thwaites Glacier. This Florida-sized, unstable ice mass plays a critical role in restraining the vast West Antarctic ice sheet. Scientists are deeply concerned that its collapse could trigger an immense ice slide into the ocean, potentially adding an alarming 15 feet to global sea levels over centuries.
However, a comprehensive understanding of Thwaites’ melting and fragmentation mechanisms is still needed to accurately predict future sea-level impacts on coastal communities.
In 2025, under the Trump administration, the NSF significantly reduced grant allocations across all scientific disciplines, framed as an effort to curb “wasteful and ‘woke’ spending.” Geoscience awards, crucial for Antarctic studies, saw a 25% drop compared to the previous decade’s average.
For many polar scientists, the decommissioning of the U.S. icebreaker Nathaniel B. Palmer and the cancellation of its replacement plans were even more significant setbacks. This leaves American researchers without a dedicated vessel for Antarctic missions, a first in fifty years.
“The U.S. used to be the global leader,” stated Julie M. Palais, former director of the NSF’s Antarctic glaciology program. “We would host international scientists, leveraging our logistical support. Now, we find ourselves seeking assistance from other nations, not merely as reciprocity, but as a vital lifeline through this challenging period for American science.”
In a statement to The Times, NSF spokesperson Mike England affirmed the agency’s commitment to “maintaining America’s active and influential presence through a world-leading science program in Antarctica.”
England also mentioned ongoing investments in modernizing America’s three aging Antarctic research stations. While the NSF supports various Thwaites-related projects, these focus on analyzing existing data, not collecting new measurements. He added that the Sikuliaq and Roger Revelle are serving as temporary substitutes for scientists originally scheduled for the Palmer.
However, the Sikuliaq is smaller and has less endurance than the Palmer, requiring more frequent resupply. The Roger Revelle, not being an icebreaker, faces operational limitations in Antarctic waters. England did not disclose the agency’s long-term strategy for future oceanic expeditions.
This year, the Korea Polar Research Institute transported 38 global scientists and engineers to Thwaites on its icebreaker, the Araon. This effort is part of a nine-year initiative to understand Antarctica’s role in a changing climate.
Won Sang Lee, the expedition’s chief scientist, stated that this second of four planned voyages to Thwaites cost the institute between $1.5 million and $2 million. While the institute covered operational costs like food and fuel for external researchers, their equipment and salaries required independent funding.
Dr. Holland, from New York University, sought $2 million from the NSF for his Thwaites projects, including a groundbreaking plan to deploy a fiber-optic cable for real-time temperature data of the glacier’s melting ocean interface. His proposal was declined, leading him to secure funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, established by Intel’s co-founder and his wife.
Meanwhile, Chris Pierce, a glaciologist at Montana State University, and his team received funding from NASA and the G. Unger Vetlesen Foundation to map Thwaites’s fractured interior using a sophisticated helicopter-mounted radar system.
A trio from the University of California, Davis, supported by the Korea Polar Research Institute, launched a robotic glider to explore the waters fronting Pine Island Glacier, another rapidly retreating ice mass close to Thwaites.
Polar geophysicist Jamin Greenbaum presented the NSF with an ambitious proposal for the expedition: to collect data within the intricate, narrow canyons formed by Thwaites’ fractured ice blocks.
These ice-clogged rifts are impassable by conventional ships. However, Dr. Greenbaum’s team pioneered a floating platform designed for helicopter deployment, promising unprecedented access to gather data beneath previously unreachable glacier sections. This could unveil crucial insights into how warm ocean currents are carving away the ice from below.
Despite being lauded as “transformative” by grant reviewers, the NSF rejected his proposal, deeming it “too high risk,” Greenbaum recounted.
Undaunted, Greenbaum began piecing together funding from diverse sources, including the Explorers Club and his institution, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He even used his personal credit card for research expenses and relied on donated equipment from other scientists.
Just weeks before the Araon‘s December departure for Antarctica, a $500,000 grant from the Fund for Science and Technology, backed by Paul G. Allen’s estate, finally arrived. This vital funding allowed Dr. Greenbaum and his team to settle their debts and commence their innovative work.
Greenbaum believes the NSF’s caution predates recent budget cuts, suggesting the agency often avoids “swinging for the fences” with bold, untested ideas.
He half-jokingly noted that the agency often prefers to fund established projects, shying away from multi-season endeavors essential for developing and testing new technologies.
NSF spokesperson England countered that “All NSF-supported projects, including international partnerships, undergo rigorous, merit-based peer review to ensure scientific excellence and responsible stewardship of public resources.”
Some U.S. scientists remain optimistic that America’s scientific prowess will keep it relevant in polar research, despite China’s rapidly expanding presence in both Antarctica and the Arctic. China inaugurated its fifth Antarctic research base in 2024, with a sixth proposed for next year. A Chinese team is currently undertaking an ambitious project to drill nearly 10,000 feet through an Antarctic glacier to investigate a subglacial lake.
“We possess immense talent in researchers, technology, and scientific drive,” lamented Eric Rignot, a professor of Earth system science at the University of California, Irvine. “Yet, we are currently sidelined, which is both unbearable and counterproductive.”
Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University, argued that the severe threat of rising sea levels necessitates a far greater investment in Antarctic research.
“Many of us have been constrained to plan for what’s feasible with meager funding,” Dr. Alley concluded, “instead of focusing on what is truly necessary.”