Scientists in the US are feeling anxious and confused after the Trump administration recently froze billions in federal research funding. Just two days later, the administration reversed its decision on stopping federal grants and loans, but a review of many federally-funded programs is still ongoing. A freeze on research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is still in effect.
The NIH is the largest biomedical research organization globally, supporting over $40 billion in health research each year. It funds around 300,000 researchers across more than 2,500 institutions, mainly in the US.
One Harvard scientist, who requested anonymity due to fear of funding cuts for speaking out, described the situation as chaotic and frightening. “It’s a threat to academic freedom,” they said, noting that many in the research field are unsure about their future.
Kenneth Evans, a science and technology policy expert at Rice University, expressed concerns that the US has become an unfriendly environment for researchers. He pointed out that the recent executive orders undermine the security of civil servant positions, including those of many scientists. “There’s no good news for US science right now,” he stated.
The funding freeze was part of a set of executive orders signed on January 27. These orders aim to change policies on scientific topics like climate and public health. They also include measures to reduce the government workforce, which affects scientists as well.
A federal court mandated that agencies continue spending after the freeze. However, experts warn that this situation could have lasting negative effects on US science. Evans noted that universities are cautiously changing or even closing programs that might conflict with the administration’s priorities.
While US research faces uncertainty, other countries are advancing. There are indications that many students and scientists are considering opportunities abroad due to the current climate. Evans remarked that if the Trump administration wants to enhance American leadership in science and technology, it has not shown a sincere commitment.
The funding halt disrupted scientific research across the nation. As some research resumes, many scientists are still unsure about the status of their federal grants. Delays in funding have already hindered crucial scientific breakthroughs. One scientist pointed out that successful research typically requires long-term planning and consistent funding.
Issues of diversity within scientific research are also at risk. Efforts to improve representation in academia may suffer setbacks due to these new funding policies. The government is now reviewing which NIH-funded programs will continue and is asking whether they support diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Looking ahead, Evans worries about the future of US scientific institutions and their global influence. He emphasized that federal agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NIH are considered gold standards for research support worldwide. He noted that Trump’s pullout from key international agreements may allow other nations, such as those in Europe and China, to take the lead in public health and climate initiatives.
Science needs a strong voice if it is to withstand the current administration’s funding cuts and policies. The scientific community is hopeful for Michael Kratsios, Trump’s nominee for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, as he awaits Senate confirmation. His ability to advocate for science amid budget cuts and other pressures will be crucial for US scientific leadership in the coming years.
