in July, Anthropology magazine Sapiens has announced that it will cease publication by the end of 2025. The magazine’s funder, the Wiener Green Foundation, had decided to end funding due to the growing need for support from the research community and the loss of the University of Chicago Press as their publishing partner, which provided marketing and administrative support.
“As we call for increased support, we must direct our full resources to sustain anthropological research and protect 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 focus on the social sciences, or anthropology in general, and to lose Sapiens—it was a blow,” said Siri Carpenter, executive director, executive director, and editor-in-chief of a nonprofit organization and publication that covers the craft of science writing.
It also highlighted the uncertainty of the field. Science journalism has been fragile for several years now: outlets like National Geographic and Wired have shrunk. Others, like sapiens, have been discontinued. The environmental publication Hawkeye Magazine closed 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 Biographies). A few years ago, the UK’s Wellcome Trust pulled the plug on its long-form digital science magazine Mosaic.
As President Donald Trump’s administration slashes funding for scientific research, and pressure mounts on foundations to help fill the gap, some journalists worry that funding is drying up. Historically, funding issues have particularly hurt beats like science and health journalism, and these new pressures only exacerbate the crisis, said Meghan Parker, executive director of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing: “None of this is new. It’s only getting worse.”
“There aren’t many publications that focus on the social sciences in general, or on anthropology, and to lose Sapiens—that was a blow.”
While many of these foundations say they will continue their commitment to science journalism, some reporters and editorial leaders are feeling apprehensive. “What appears from the outside has been a lot of uncertainty on the part of the base about how to navigate this new era that we’re in under the second Trump administration,” Carpenter said.
The calculation may come down to what the foundation’s mission is, and whether science journalism is a part of that. “In times of crisis, foundations will retreat to their core,” Parker said. “The need and demand for their core mission is still very high. So this science is a great challenge for the philanthropy.”
fFinding out The 2008 financial crash, the loss of advertising and subscription revenue, has hit the journalism industry hard, especially beats like science, health and the environment that were considered unimportant compared to other areas of coverage like politics, crime, sports and business.
At that moment, “foundations stepped in and filled the void,” said a health care journalist who has run a publication called HealthNewserView.org for 16 years. The outlet, he said, features 3,200 news and reviews of news releases, which are “never without foundations.” Schutzer’s site, which has struggled with its funding, ceased regular publication in late 2018.
Philanthropic support is very important to many news organizations. According to a 2024 analysis by membership organization Media Impact Funders, the top 25 funders collectively gave $1.1 billion to journalism between 2018 and 2022, and nearly three-quarters of all 47 organizations surveyed reported an increase in journalism grantmaking. Just this August, a group of foundations pledged $36.5 million to state media, seeking to cut federal funding.
“The need and demand for their core mission is still very high. So this science is a huge challenge for the philanthropy.”
Science, health, and environmental journalism have also benefited organizations such as the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Simons Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Knight Foundation, among many others. (Andrick is supported by an endowment from the Knight Foundation, and the author of this story worked for the Transmitter, which is funded by the Simons Foundation. Both outlets are editorially independent from their funding.) Parker wrote in an unpublished report that “The Future of Environmental Journalism Is Funding and Financing Between Donors and Funding.” , he has said in a dubious report that journalism is comparable.
For nearly 20 years, the foundations “have had a remarkable impact,” Schutzer said.
But now the ground is changing. The Trump administration has affected the entire scientific funding landscape, and grant cancellations and budget cuts have left researchers looking for new sources of support. “The current moment throws a whole bunch of other wrenches into the works,” Parker said. “When they started cutting those funds, guess who got called? All the bases.”
Parker added that in light of the changing landscape, foundations are “sitting on their hands”, having to rethink their investments and act more aggressively.
For the Weiner Green Foundation, for example, that means directing more funding to researchers—and ending support for journalism. (The budget for Sapiens was $1.2 million, about 10 percent of the foundation’s annual budget, according to Danielle Rutherford, president of the Weiner Green Foundation.) When Sapiens lost its publishing partner in early 2025, Sapiens editor-in-chief, Chip Colwell, canvassed more than 25 institutions to find a new partner. During that search, Rutherford said, “it became clear that Trump’s moment was very strongly affecting his prospects for other institutions or organizations.”
Then, in the middle of the search, the foundation received 40 percent more applications for research grants and postdoctoral fellowships than a year ago. Ultimately, without a publishing partner, Weiner Green decided the foundation had to prioritize investing in researchers. By the end of 2025, four full-time Saipan employees will be out of a job.
Ddespite With increasing demand from academia, some foundations feel they are well settled to continue supporting science media. For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which focuses on health policy, public health research, and equity research, has an endowment of about $14 billion and recently received an injection of funding from the board, said Alonzo Pullo, the foundation’s vice president and chief science officer. Although they’ve also sought help from researchers, “for us, it’s not going to be a zero-sum game.” He added that the foundation will continue to fund science communication and media.
Already, foundations have responded to a shake-up in media support with a policy change that disrupted 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 after the Trump administration cut funding.
Some foundations feel they have sufficient resources to continue supporting science media.
Seven major foundations stepped in to fill this gap. “We couldn’t even begin to put on ScienceWriters 2025 without their fast and flexible support,” Parker wrote in an email.
“The nature of philanthropic funding is that it’s always changing — interests and priorities are always changing,” Carpenter said. So, leaders like him are already starting to brainstorm ways to pivot if they support reduction. For example, Open Notebook staff are working on other sources of income, such as providing training and workshops. In late September, the Climate News Task Force, of which Parker is a part, shared recommendations on how to fund climate journalism at scale, including establishing 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.
For now, the funding picture is unclear. Many funders have been able to adapt to changing demands for most of the year. “The realization is that we need to be flexible enough to meet the next crisis,” Rutherford said.
That could also mean a year-end increase in available funds that foundations need to spend, Parker said. This last quarter of the year is “going to be the thing that tells the story,” he said.
Many are optimistic that, as in 2008, the foundations for journalistic beats like science and health will become lifelines and help stabilize the industry. “I think philanthropy is not going away,” Parker said. “Philanthropy is now firmly part of the answer.”
Disclosure: Claudia López Lollorda has received funding from the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing and the National Association of Science Writers for travel to conferences.
