Connect with us

Science

The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine

Published

on

The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine

Advertisement

National Institutes of Health competitive grant funding

Advertisement

In the past decade, the National Institutes of Health awarded top scientists $9 billion in competitive grants each year, to find cures for diseases and improve public health.

This year, something unusual happened…

This year, something unusual happened…

Advertisement

Starting in January, the Trump administration stalled that funding. By summer, funding lagged by over $2 billion, or 41 percent below average.

Advertisement

But in a surprising turn, the N.I.H. began to spend at a breakneck pace and narrow this gap.

Advertisement

There was a catch, however: That money went to fewer grants.

Which means less research was funded in areas such as aging, diabetes, strokes, cancer and mental health.

Advertisement

Which means less research was funded in areas such as aging, diabetes, strokes, cancer and mental health.

Advertisement

Includes new grants and competitive grant renewals. In 2025 dollars.

To spend its budget, the N.I.H. made an unusual number of large lump-sum payments for many years of research, instead of its usual policy of paying for research one year at a time.

As a result of this quiet policy shift, the average payment for competitive grants swelled from $472,000 in the first half of the fiscal year to over $830,000 in the last two months.

Advertisement

While this might sound like a boon for researchers, it’s actually a fundamental shift in how grants are funded — one that means more competition for funding, and less money and less time to do the research.

Advertisement
Advertisement

In the past, the N.I.H. typically awarded grants in five annual installments.

Advertisement

Researchers could request two more years to spend this money, at no cost.

Advertisement

Under the new system, the N.I.H. pays up front for four years of work.

Advertisement

And researchers can get one more year to spend this money.

Advertisement

Which means that they get less money on average, and less time to spend it.

And because these fully funded grants commit all of their money up front, it means the agency’s annual budget is divided into fewer projects, instead of being spread among a larger number of scientific bets.

Advertisement

The new policy directive came from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which in the summer instructed the N.I.H. to spend half of its remaining funds to fully fund research grants. In the past, the agency would do so only in special circumstances.

The White House has said this would “increase N.I.H. budget flexibility” by not encumbering its annual budget with payments to previously approved projects. It has said it plans to continue this policy in 2026, while proposing to shrink the agency’s budget by $18 billion, or nearly 40 percent. (The Senate and House rejected the White House’s proposed budget cuts, but have not yet agreed on the agency’s budget.)

Advertisement

“My sense of it was that the administration wanted to clear the decks,” said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the N.I.H.’s National Cancer Institute, who said she was sharing her views, not those of the institute.

The new policy is being carried out as the Trump administration has tightened its hold over federal science funding. Earlier this year, it delayed reviewing grants in order to vet research by political appointees, culled projects that mentioned D.E.I. and fired thousands of employees or pressured them to retire early. (The N.I.H. lost nearly 3,000 employees this year, or about 14 percent of its work force, based on a New York Times review of the agency’s shutdown contingency plans.)

“They brought everything to a stop,” Dr. Kobrin said.

Advertisement

Nonetheless, the N.I.H. managed to spend most of its budget by the end of the fiscal year. “My colleagues did an outstanding job to work their butts off to approve things,” said Theresa Kim, a program officer at N.I.H.’s National Institute on Aging.

Something similar happened at the National Science Foundation, which is the second-largest federal funder of research at U.S. universities, after the N.I.H.

Advertisement

The N.S.F. started the year with funding delays caused by the Trump administration, and it lost about a third of its employees in layoffs or forced retirements. The agency ended the year awarding 25 percent fewer new grants.

Advertisement

New grants awarded by the National Science Foundation, 2015–25

Facing a proposed $5 billion cut to its $9 billion budget, the N.S.F. fully paid off many of the grants that were on its books, a strategy that employees called “paying down the mortgage.” It also paid for nearly all new awards upfront (though, unlike at the N.I.H., not necessarily for less time and money).

To draw these conclusions, The Times used public data to analyze nearly every competitive grant — over 300,000 in all — that the N.I.H. and the N.S.F. awarded since 2015, and interviewed many employees at these agencies.

Advertisement

Here’s what we found:

1. Fewer grants in every area of science and medicine

Advertisement

Together, the N.I.H. and the N.S.F. had a nearly $60 billion annual budget for funding future breakthroughs in science and medicine, about a quarter of which is typically spent on new grants or competitive renewals.

This year, both agencies made far fewer competitive awards:

Advertisement

Competitive grants at the …

Advertisement

National Institutes of Health

National Science Foundation

The White House has said it is streamlining scientific funding by eliminating wasteful spending and cutting “woke programs” that “poison the minds of Americans.”

Advertisement

But the more than 3,500 fewer competitive grants from the N.I.H. this year touched every area of biology and medicine:

Advertisement

Competitive grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health

Figures are rounded. In 2025 dollars.

Advertisement

In practice, this means thousands of very competitive projects in areas like cancer, diabetes, aging, neurological disorders and public health improvements probably went unfunded in 2025.

Similarly, at the National Science Foundation, the roughly 3,000 fewer new grants encompassed reductions to every area of science (and the social sciences):

Advertisement

New grants awarded by the National Science Foundation

Advertisement

Advertisement

Directorate 2015-24 avg. 2025 Change
Social, behavioral and economic sciences 935 501 -46%
Biology 1,143 735 -36%
Geosciences 1,483 964 -35%
STEM education 1,087 758 -30%
Computer science 2,017 1,459 -28%
Engineering 1,755 1,461 -17%
Math and physics 2,512 2,094 -17%
Technology and innovation 757 657 -13%
Office of the director 132 205 +55%
Total 11,821 8,834 -25%

Advertisement

Figures are rounded. In 2025 dollars. Table includes only directorates with spending in 2025.

There were fewer new grants awarded in biology, geosciences, STEM education, computer science and engineering, math, physics, technology and innovation.

Only the office of the director awarded more new grants this year; it funds projects that don’t neatly fall into other categories. That growth was fueled by a previously established N.S.F. goal to expand fellowships at universities in regions that have historically received less federal funding.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has also taken the unusual step of canceling thousands of active health and science grants, citing a lack of overlap with its priorities.

The website Grant Witness has estimated that the administration canceled or froze 5,415 N.I.H. grants this year, of which roughly half have been reinstated through court cases or negotiations where universities have agreed to some of the administration’s demands. And it canceled or froze 1,996 N.S.F. grants, of which nearly a third have been reinstated, according to Grant Witness estimates.

Advertisement

2. More competition

It’s simple math: Fewer grants implies more competition for federal funding.

Take the category of research grants known as R01, the oldest and most prestigious grant that the N.I.H. awards. An acceptance or rejection can make or break a scientist’s career.

Advertisement

These grants fund topics such as studying the impact of e-cigarettes on brain health, modeling the movements of mice, or devising new methods to kill mosquitoes.

Last year, only one in six were funded. But this year, the agency awarded 24 percent fewer R01 grants.

Advertisement

R01 grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health

Advertisement

This means fewer scientists had their research funded. Last year, the N.I.H.’s National Cancer Institute funded R01 applications from new investigators that fell in the top 10 percent based on scoring by the agency. But by the end of fiscal year 2025, it funded only the top 4 percent.

“Nobody believes that a fourth-percentile and a fifth-percentile grant are clearly of different quality,” Dr. Kobrin said. “It’s just not that precise a measurement.”

3. A drop in grants mentioning diversity

Advertisement

The Trump administration has prioritized eliminating research that involves diversity, equity and inclusion, and has eliminated hundreds of keywords related to diversity on federal websites.

A Times analysis found a steep reduction in the share of competitive N.I.H. grants whose titles or abstracts included flagged D.E.I.-related keywords (such as “equity,” “racial minority” or “underserved patient”) on a list shared by N.I.H. employees.

Advertisement

Share of competitive N.I.H. grants that included flagged D.E.I.-related keywords

Advertisement

The data shows a big surge in these keywords after 2020, during the Biden administration.

While some of the decline in 2025 could be attributed to a change in the language that researchers use to describe their work, it also probably reflects a drop in research related to minority health. For example, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities awarded 61 percent fewer competitive grants this year, the steepest decline at any arm of the N.I.H.

N.I.H. employees said they did not receive clear guidance on how to determine if a project was D.E.I.-related. Instead, they were sent spreadsheets of grants that had been flagged for not complying with the Trump administration’s priorities.

Advertisement

“We’re constantly hearing that things have been flagged,” Dr. Kobrin said.

“Nobody wants to acknowledge what they were flagged for.”

Advertisement

4. Fewer fellowships for future scientists

The government provides critical funds for training new scientists through graduate student, postdoctoral and early-career fellowships and grants.

The N.S.F. has run a prestigious graduate research fellowship program since 1952. It funds three years of research for around 2,000 of the country’s top science graduate students.

Advertisement

Number of graduate research fellowships awarded by the National Science Foundation

Advertisement

This year, it awarded 536 fewer such fellowships. The government originally planned to eliminate 1,000 fellowships, but later added about 500 more after facing protests from scientists and academics.

The cut affected most fields, with fellowships in four areas — life sciences, psychology, STEM education and social sciences — being cut by more than half. Fellowships in computer science, an administration priority, grew by almost 50 percent.

Advertisement

National Science Foundation graduate research fellowships

Advertisement

Advertisement
Field 2015-24 avg. 2025 Change
Life sciences 516 214 -59%
Psychology 117 56 -52%
STEM education 29 14 -52%
Social sciences 159 79 -50%
Math 90 56 -38%
Geosciences 122 84 -31%
Engineering 575 406 -29%
Chemistry 176 154 -13%
Materials research 58 63 +9%
Physics 139 166 +19%
Computer science 141 208 +48%
Total 2,121 1,500 -29%

There were also months of delays in publishing the fellowship application for next year, and new eligibility restrictions that exclude second-year Ph.D. students from applying, which may lower the numbers of fellowships in future years.

“This is an incredibly shortsighted and regressive change,” said Kevin Johnson, a former program director at N.S.F.’s geosciences directorate, because second-year graduate students are usually better prepared to conduct research.

Advertisement

“It sends a signal to future potential applicants that science is not supported and is not valued,” he said.

Early-career scientists are usually more reliant on federal funding because they have few alternatives to fund their research and training. Many go on to work in industry afterward, further fueling the economy.

In a 1945 report that led to the creation of the N.S.F., Vannevar Bush, who directed military research and development during World War II, argued that the government should invest in training the next generation of scientists to ensure American scientific progress.

Advertisement

But many experts worry that the recent funding cuts and budget reductions may threaten America’s role as a global scientific leader.

“I personally know many scientists in my field leaving the United States altogether,” Mr. Johnson said.

Advertisement
Advertisement

About the Data

For grants from the National Institutes of Health, we downloaded data from N.I.H. RePORTER from fiscal year 2015 onward, and filtered out intramural projects, R&D contracts, interagency agreements, subprojects and grants administered by other entities. We looked only at grants labeled as new (type 1) or competitive renewals (type 2, 4C and 9) that were awarded during the fiscal year. (We did not include noncompetitive renewal grants, which are ongoing annual payments to research awarded in past years.)

For grants from the National Science Foundation, we downloaded data from the N.S.F.’s award search website from fiscal year 2015 onward. We analyzed both standard grants, where all of the money is committed up front, and continuing grants, where the money is paid in annual increments. (We did not include annual payments made to grants that were awarded in prior years.) For grants that were awarded in past years, we used USASpending.gov to identify when each grant was awarded. Data for the graduate research fellowship program was retrieved from the program’s award listing.

Advertisement

All dollar figures are adjusted to August 2025 dollars, and the data is updated as of Nov. 25, 2025.

Science

As mosquitoes go year-round in L.A., a promising fix hits a snag

Published

on

As mosquitoes go year-round in L.A., a promising fix hits a snag

Residents were supposed to get a respite from the ankle-nipping mosquitoes that fueled a recent surge in dengue fever in Los Angeles County.

Typically, the invasive mosquitoes — called Aedes aegypti — essentially disappear from winter until early May in the region.

Instead, complaints to local agencies tasked with controlling the pests spiked recently.

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

“We have not seen them go away altogether like they have in previous years,” said Susanne Kluh, general manager for the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District.

Their unusual presence adds to the urgency of work going on in a 40-foot shipping container tucked away in Pacoima. It’s about to transform into a bustling nursery for tens of thousands of mosquitoes.

This May, the district is set for the third year in a row to release legions of sterilized male mosquitoes — which don’t bite — into parts of Sunland-Tujunga.

The last two years were promising, with the female population in two treated neighborhoods plunging by an average of more than 80%.

Advertisement

Yet business owners have signaled they’re not willing to pay to expand it.

That’s thrown uncertainty into officials’ goal of eventually bringing the approach to their whole service area, spanning 36 cities and unincorporated communities.

Steve Vetrone, assistant general manager at the Greater L.A. vector district.

Steve Vetrone, assistant general manager at the Greater L.A. district.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

“Unfortunately, that’s going to be a rather expensive endeavor,” said Steve Vetrone, an assistant general manager for the district. “I can tell you right now that’s not something that we can do with our current operating budget.”

Advertisement

A need, an ask and a disappointing answer

Aedes aegypti are a new-ish local fixture. Native to Africa, the black-and-white striped mosquitoes were first detected in California in 2013 and landed in L.A. County the following year.

“Despite our best efforts, they’ve been able to just outpace us, and they’re now in every city and community within our district,” and all of Southern California, Vetrone said. In fact, the low-flying, day-biting mosquitoes are present in nearly half of California’s counties, including Shasta in the far north.

Desperate to find a solution, many are trying the so-called sterile insect technique — including vector control districts serving Orange and San Bernardino counties, as well as the San Gabriel Valley — and “we kind of all hope that this is going to be our silver bullet,” Kluh said.

The idea is fairly simple: unleash sterile males so that they far outnumber wild ones — say, 10 to 1 or even 100 to 1. The goal is for the altered males to mate with females, producing eggs that don’t hatch.

Kluh’s district uses X-rays to sterilize males but there are other methods, such as using genetically modified insects or ones infected with bacteria.

Advertisement
White mesh boxes holding mosquitoes on shelves inside a shipping container.

Female mosquitoes are fed different types of blood — pig and cow — to see which leads to the most eggs.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

The technique, while promising, requires time and money.

In California, property owners foot the bill for local mosquito (and other pest) control, with some paying an annual fee called a benefit assessment.

Levying a new fee requires approval from home, apartment and business owners, in accordance with Proposition 218.

Advertisement

To unleash sterile male mosquitoes in a broader swath of the Greater L.A. district, officials are seeking up to $20 a year per single family home. That would be on top of $18.97 that homeowners now pay for the agency’s services.

Last April, the district sent out 50,000 sample ballots to property owners, asking if they’d support the increase.

Only 47% of those returned were in favor.

“Data showed that single family homeowners were pretty supportive, but fewer business owners with larger parcels and potentially higher dues did not see the benefit in the additional expense,” Kluh said in an email.

Business owners might not live in the area, but their vote — if their property spans several acres — is weighted more heavily.

Advertisement

Times readers, commenting on a story from last year about the proposal, responded favorably.

“I hate mosquitos because they love me so much,” one reader said. “I would happily spend $20 to reduce their populations! I probably spend more [than] that on repellent.”

Officials haven’t given up, and plan to send out another round of sample ballots next year.

Kluh already has talking points for businesses in her back pocket: Restaurant owners should have an interest in making outdoor dining more pleasant, while apartment owners could lose revenue if their renters are sickened by an outbreak of Zika, chikungunya or yellow fever — all diseases transmitted by Aedes aegypti, she said.

Making mosquitoes that can’t reproduce

On a recent tour of the Pacoima insectary, Nicolas Tremblay, a senior vector ecologist with the district, whipped out a small container filled with a handful of what looked like vitamins.

Advertisement

But the clear pill cases were filled with about 6,500 mosquito eggs and bovine liver powder.

Nicolas Tremblay, senior vector ecologist, places tape on water-filled trays in the Pacoima insectary.

Nicolas Tremblay, senior vector ecologist, tapes trays to indicate pill capsules filled with mosquito eggs were placed in water.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

The pills are dropped into trays of water, where the eggs hatch and the larvae feed on the powder. It takes about nine days to go from egg to buzzing adult.

The males are then chauffeured to Garden Grove, where they’re zapped with X-rays. Then they’re driven back and set free the next day.

Advertisement

“It’s crazier around August, September, is when we’ll probably reach our peak production” of up to 72,000 mosquitoes a week, he said. “All these [trays] would be full of water and mosquitoes.”

In 2024, the district launched its pilot, releasing nearly 600,000 sterilized males in two Sunland-Tujunga neighborhoods over about five months.

The population of Aedes aegypti females dropped by an average of 82% compared with a control area.

The stakes became clear that year, when California reported 18 locally acquired dengue cases — a sharp rise from the first-ever cases confirmed the year before.

Last year, the pilot saw similar success, though there was also a natural drop in activity districtwide.

Advertisement

On the recent visit to the insectary, several hundred mosquitoes flew around in white mesh cages, serving as participants in a study to see which blood they prefer — pig or cow.

“We haven’t completed the trials yet, but it seems like they didn’t care,” he said.

One thing scientists already know: Aedes aegypti love biting people.

A highly adaptive foe

The invasive mosquitoes can lay their eggs in tiny amounts of water. A bottle cap or crease in a potato chip bag is fair game.

What’s more, mosquitoes in the Greater L.A. district are resistant to a lot of pesticides.

Advertisement

Now, there might be a new concern. Typically, the invasive mosquitoes go into a type of hibernation every year.

Kluh said it appeared that they may have mutated in a way that allows them to stay active through the winter.

A warming climate has already expanded their season and allowed them to move into formerly inhospitable regions.

Releasing sterilized males involves no pesticides, and also leverages the insect’s biology: Males in lust are adept at finding females.

Many residents are thrilled by the promising tool, but others bristle at the idea of manipulating nature.

Advertisement

“There’s folks that are in favor and then there are folks that are just absolutely opposed because it’s like, ‘You’re playing God,’” Vetrone said.

Continue Reading

Science

Record Heat Meets a Major Snow Drought Across the West

Published

on

Record Heat Meets a Major Snow Drought Across the West

At this point in a typical year, as the seasons officially turn from winter to spring, snowpack would still be accumulating across the Mountain West.

But this winter wasn’t typical, even before a heat wave this past week. It was the warmest on record for six Western states. Snow cover is the lowest level on record for the Colorado River Basin, and across much of the rest of the West, there are record or near-record low amounts of snow.

Advertisement

That alone would create a challenging year for water managers, who rely on slow and steady snowmelt to feed streams, rivers and reservoirs and meet spring and summer demand for irrigation and drinking water. While rainfall runs off quickly and can more readily evaporate from soil, snowpack serves as a valuable and lasting source of moisture and accounts for a majority of water supplies across the region, as much as 80 percent in some areas.

Advertisement

Current snowpack compared to historical averages

Advertisement

The intense heat wave threatens to make water management all the more challenging.

Advertisement

Much of the thin snowpack was already “ready to melt” before the heat set in, said Jon Meyer, assistant state climatologist at the Utah Climate Center. “This is the nail in the coffin.”

It’s unusual to see the whole West like this, said Leanne Lestak, an associate senior scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder who specializes in mapping snow and how much water it holds.

In early March, Ms. Lestak and her team found that vast majority of the Western United States had less than two-thirds of the amount of snow typical for this time of year, with few exceptions. In Arizona and parts of Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon, snowpack was less than a quarter of what it would usually be.

Advertisement

“The situation is pretty dire,” Dr. Meyer said.

Advertisement

The Cottonwood fire in Dawson County, Neb., on March 13. Nebraska State Patrol via AP

The heat wave is also increasing the already-elevated fire risk across some drought-stricken areas. In Nebraska, drought set the stage for the largest wildfire in state history, which broke out last week and has not yet been contained.

The conditions that led to this year’s low snowpack are unusual, too. Snow droughts often develop from dry weather patterns that starve the West of any significant precipitation during the winter, said Dan McEvoy, a climatologist at the Desert Research Institute and Western Regional Climate Center.

Advertisement

But in many places, it wasn’t necessarily a dry year, he said. Instead, temperatures have been so warm that precipitation has fallen as rain, rather than snow, even at higher elevations.

Many of the mountaintops could still see some more snowfall. But as Cody Moser, a hydrologist with the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center in Salt Lake City, looks ahead to predicting how the spring will go, he doesn’t foresee any significant change in weather patterns. Now he’s expecting peak snowmelt flows to occur earlier than ever recorded in many locations, he said this week.

Advertisement

“I think it’s highly likely we’ve seen peak snowpack,” Mr. Moser said.

Advertisement

Snowpack feeding the Colorado River reaches historic lows

Source: USDA National Water and Climate Center

Advertisement

Even after a winter that was the warmest on record for Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Oregon, the heat that set in across much of the West this past week was extreme. Meteorologists said they were expecting to set record highs for the month of March in many locations, and the earliest arrivals of 100-degree temperatures in records that go back more than a century.

Across the Colorado River Basin, even at elevations as high as 10,000 feet, temperatures were forecast to surge into the 50s and 60s Fahrenheit on Friday and Saturday, Mr. Moser said, some 15 to 20 degrees warmer than average.

Relatively light winds and dry air over the region could limit snowmelt to some degree, he said, but the warmth and sunshine may prevent some moisture from ever reaching stream beds, said John Fleck, a water policy expert at the University of New Mexico.

Advertisement

“A lot of it is going to evaporate off before it even has a chance to hit the stream,” Mr. Fleck said.

This heat wave is so extreme that it would only be expected to occur once about every 500 years in the current climate, according to World Weather Attribution, a group of scientists who study links between extreme weather events and climate change.

Advertisement

“These temperatures are completely off the scale for March, and our data shows that they would be virtually impossible in a world without human-caused climate change,” said Ben Clarke, a research associate in extreme weather and climate change at Imperial College London.

Ski trails in Park City, Utah, in February. Mario Tama/Getty Images

Advertisement

In places like the Colorado Front Range, home to the majority of that state’s population, snowpack serves as the largest source of water. For the utility Denver Water, snowpack usually contains significantly more water than its largest surface reservoir, said Taylor Winchell, the agency’s climate adaptation program lead.

Denver Water has enough supply to handle a low-water year, but the snowpack conditions are creating “very high levels of concern,” Mr. Winchell said. The Denver Water Board is poised to officially declare Stage One drought restrictions, asking residents to significantly reduce their outdoor watering. If the snow drought were to repeat for multiple years, the problem could compound and worsen, he said.

Advertisement

The snow drought occurs at a critical time for the larger Colorado River Basin. An agreement among the basin’s seven states over how to divide its water expired at the end of last year, and negotiations to develop a new water plan fell apart last month. (The states are also obligated to share a small portion of the water with Mexico.)

The snow drought is complicating that work. Snowpack from the river’s Upper Basin, across mountains of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming, accounts for a majority of the river’s natural flow each year. Declining spring precipitation and rising temperatures have caused the Colorado’s flow to decrease by nearly 20 percent over the past quarter century.

Recent forecasts estimated that inflows to Lake Powell, a key reservoir that straddles the Utah-Arizona border, will be the third-smallest on record. The lake’s surface could drop to a critical level for hydroelectric power production by the end of this year, affecting a power grid that serves seven states.

Advertisement

Officials at the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency that oversees the Colorado River and its reservoirs, declined to be interviewed but said in a statement they were monitoring hydrologic conditions to guide decisions about how to manage the Colorado River system.

Mr. Fleck said a crisis without precedent could be brewing. While a drought that hit the basin in 2002 was worse, it was relatively more manageable than what the West now faces: “We’re having one of the worst years in many decades, but with no cushion of reservoir storage to fall back on to bail us out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

New report on L.A. post-fire beach contamination finds something unexpected: good news

Published

on

New report on L.A. post-fire beach contamination finds something unexpected: good news

Researchers investigating the long-term effects of the 2025 firestorms on L.A.’s beaches have found that rarest of things: good news.

In the year following the Palisades and Eaton fires, levels of harmful metals like lead in coastal sand and seawater have remained far below California’s limits for safe drinking water and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s safety thresholds for aquatic life.

“We’re not seeing any evidence for harm in the ecosystem or harm for human health,” said Noelle Held, a University of Southern California marine biogeochemist and principal investigator for the CLEAN Waters project, which is measuring post-fire water quality.

The Palisades and Eaton fires burned more than 40,000 acres and destroyed at least 12,000 buildings, blanketing the ocean in ash for up to 100 miles offshore. Heavy rains a few weeks later washed the charred remnants of plastics, batteries, cars, chemicals and other potentially toxic material into the sea and up onto beaches via the region’s massive network of storm drains and concrete-lined rivers.

Initial testing by the nonprofit environmental group Heal the Bay in the weeks after the fires documented a spike in lead, mercury and other heavy metals in coastal waters. Concentrations of beryllium, copper, chromium, nickel and lead in particular were significantly above established safety thresholds for marine life, prompting fears for the long-term health of fish, marine mammals and the marine food chain.

Advertisement

For their most recent study, Held’s team analyzed seawater samples collected along multiple locations on five different dates between Feb. 10 and Oct. 17 in 2025, along with sand collected in August.

Seawater lead concentrations were highest in the month after the fire and in October, when the season’s first major rain had just washed months’ worth of urban pollution into the ocean.

Even at their peak, lead levels barely surpassed 1 microgram per liter — well below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s aquatic life safety threshold of 8.1 micrograms per liter.

While levels of iron, manganese and cobalt were higher in sampling locations near the Palisades burn scar than they were in other areas, even there they remain well below concentrations that could pose harm to human or marine life.

For beach sand collected in August, lead levels never topped 14 parts per million at any location, significantly below both the current California residential soil standard of 80 parts per million and the stricter 55 parts per million standard proposed by environmental health researchers.

Advertisement

“This isn’t something we would flag if we were testing your soil in your yard,” Held said.

The recent findings are consistent with water quality tests the State Water Resources Control Board conducted earlier in 2025. A board spokesperson said those found both higher relative concentrations of metals closest to the burn scars and no overall evidence that post-fire pollution poses an ongoing threat to human health.

Yet the need for continued testing remains. Officials struggled to answer questions about post-fire beach safety in part because of a lack of historical data on pollution levels, a pitfall researchers would like to forestall before another disaster arrives.

Future rainstorms could also continue to wash metals into Will Rogers Beach and the Rustic Creek outfall, both of which are near the Palisades burn scar, CLEAN Waters warned.

“Post-fire impacts can change over time, depending on rainfalls, runoffs and sediment movements,” said Eugenia Ermacora, manager of the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation’s L.A. chapter, which has partnered with Held’s team to collect samples. “It’s not just about the fires, but it’s about urbanization and how much our city needs to continue the work of doing testing in the water.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending