For sure. But depending on what Congress does, think defense budgets could grow, which would mean more money for defense-positioned Labs like Los Alamos.
Nuclear research is done under the Department of Energy, not DoD. Los Alamos is a DoE lab, and the DoE received major cuts in the recent budget bill, though that shifts energy efficiency research into weapons research and net increases lab funding.
Los Alamos is an NNSA lab; NNSA is a semi-autonomous component of DOE and its weapons activities budget is distinct from the general DOE budget. NNSA’s nonproliferation budget has been cut but they’re still very well funded on the weapons side even if they’ve lost quite a lot of people in the last few months.
The national labs are organized under the Office of Science (17 labs), NNSA (LANL, LLNL, Sandia), the Office of Nuclear Energy (INL), the Office of Environmental Management (Savannah River), Office of Fossil Energy (NETL), and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (NREL). Some offices are doing better than others re: funding in the current environment!
I have heard that their internal review processes for papers have started telling people to not say stuff like "XYZ may be useful for climate research" or "this is an alternative energy source that's environmentally friendly." Like they are literally discouraged from talking about climate stuff at all lol.
Wouldn't surprise me. Getting rid of the other research programs won't be great for the labs though. The weapons research has a bunch of weird incentives because of the geopolitical context it exists in. The goal usually isn't to operationalize research, it's to have credible evidence of a functioning nuclear program, maintain the arsenal, and act as a jobs program for nuclear physics. The other programs act as a way to operationalize things in socially acceptable ways. If you get rid of them, I suspect the labs aren't going to be better-off for it even with more funding.
