Unpacking the Impact: How Trump’s Executive Orders Are Shaking Up Academic Research

Recently, many scientists who rely on federal grants are facing major disruptions. Some have lost their funding or can’t access approved bucks while agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) adjust to new executive orders from President Trump.

These executive orders are broad and somewhat unclear. They cut funding for programs focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as areas like “gender ideology” and green energy projects. Researchers are feeling the tension as they wait for clarity on how these orders will affect their work.

Both the NIH and NSF have paused their grant review panels until February 1, which affects the flow of new funding. Recently, there was a memo suggesting that all federal grants and loans could be frozen. Thankfully, this memo was rescinded, but the anxiety remains for many researchers who depend on these funds to continue their work.

A doctoral student at Northwestern University, who wished to remain anonymous, shared their concerns. “I don’t know if I’ll receive my funds or if my project is still on track,” they said. “Without this funding, I can’t finish my research, which means I might not graduate on time. It’s a race against time.”

Every year, the NIH and NSF provide billions to universities for research across diverse fields. A cut in these funds might halt important studies or force universities to use their limited resources instead.

However, communication from federal agencies has been lacking. The NSF recently suggested that institutions work with their research offices to comply with the new directives, leaving many universities scrambling for detailed guidance.

The doctoral researcher mentioned how their study of disease development in specific populations seems to be at odds with DEI definitions. “Does focusing on certain cultural backgrounds count as DEI?” they pondered. It’s a confusing and frustrating time for many in academia.

There are worries that under President Trump, topics like climate change might come under scrutiny, putting research in jeopardy. Researchers have been working to save important data as public health sources went dark for a time, adding to the chaos.

Mia McIver, leader of the American Association of University Professors, expressed concerns that such executive orders aim to stifle voices in higher education. She warns that compliance with these directives could weaken the educational mission of colleges and universities, making it harder for them to advocate for important research.

Some institutions have told their faculty to keep going as usual unless they receive direct orders to stop. “Continue your work unless you hear otherwise,” said Northwestern’s research office in a recent communication. But many faculty members are already aware that their projects have been halted.

For example, Naomi Lee, an assistant professor at Northern Arizona University, received a notice that her NIH-funded program aimed at supporting underrepresented high school students in STEM had been canceled. This termination means she lacks the funds to support her staff and students for the upcoming semester, even though she’s determined to find alternative funding.

Lee emphasized, “Our program isn’t just for a select few; it’s for all students, focusing on those who need it most. Diversity exists in America, and it’s not going away.”

Others worry that the vague language of the executive orders will put various beneficial programs at risk, even those not directly tied to DEI initiatives. For instance, Ben Stone, a postdoctoral fellow, pointed out that his plant genome research could also be affected, as broader impacts related to diversity are a requirement for NSF funding.

While Stone feels secure in his future job, he knows that upcoming students may not have the same access to funding like he did. Some grants have already been flagged as possibly discontinued, causing a ripple of anxiety among researchers awaiting news on their financial support.

Last week, Stone attempted to access his salary through the NSF’s payment system but found it halted as the agency reviewed its programs. “This is not how things usually operate,” he stated, expressing frustration over freezing active grants.

Regarding ongoing NIH grants, Darby Saxbe, a psychology professor at USC, expressed uncertainty about receiving her final funding installment. She depends on these funds to pay her team and continue a crucial study that spans several years. “Time is critical for our research. We can’t easily replace families who have been part of our study,” she explained.

Saxbe pointed out that while researchers strive for inclusive representation, it’s unclear if these practices might now fall under scrutiny as part of the new orders. “We aim to avoid bias in our samples, but now we’re left guessing,” she said.

Historically, the NIH and NSF have enjoyed bipartisan support due to their commitment to rigorous scientific standards. Saxbe warned that introducing political criteria to grant applications could compromise scientific integrity. “This could weaken the quality of research and introduce ideologically biased standards for funding,” she concluded.