Science Under Attack: A Current State of Affairs
One month into the Trump administration, we review how recent executive orders have set out to debilitate scientific research across the nation–and what might come next.
Introduction
About one month into the Trump administration, scientists across the nation are sounding alarms as executive orders and federal intervention threaten to disrupt the U.S. research ecosystem. From communication blackouts, to paused or cancelled grants, to removal of public data from government websites, these actions mark only the beginning of the administration’s attempts to interrupt and dismantle science across the country.
Because so much has happened in the last few weeks, it can be difficult to parse through all of the headlines and make sense of what’s happening and how it’s going to affect you or the country at large. In order to both keep track of everything that has happened so far and to draw your attention to particularly concerning developments, this post will highlight and summarize some of the major issues at hand. Specific topics, such as federal funding or disease monitoring, will be broken up into individual sections where we will provide you with resources to learn more about what’s currently happening in these areas.
While it is difficult to wrap our heads around the scale of what is happening, we must try. The chaotic and haphazard nature of these developments is, ultimately, a strategy to overwhelm us and to prevent us from organizing against what is becoming an increasingly concerning attack on science, on public health, and on the pursuit of objective truth and knowledge. The only way to persevere through this period is to remain informed on what is happening and to continue speaking out against the actions being taken to hinder science in the United States. In addition to taking you through recent developments, we’ll also explain how you can expect to be affected and what actions you can take to support scientists and their research.
Federal Agencies (NIH, CDC, FDA, NSF)
Layoffs have begun at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Nearly 200 employees (amounting to 10% of the agency’s entire workforce) have been let go as of February 18th. As we’ve seen with other federal layoffs so far, probationary employees are being primarily targeted. Read more from Bloomberg.
Massive layoffs at federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are underway. An estimated 5,200 federal employees received notice of termination over Valentine’s Day weekend. Many of these workers were probationary, meaning that they had not served in their current position for the allotted time (1 to 2 years) to receive civil service protection. However, this doesn’t mean that they were necessarily new hires; some employees were transitioning to federal service or a new position within their respective agencies. Undoubtedly, all agencies will suffer from losing the expertise and experience of so many talented scientists. Of particular concern is the apparent elimination of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service, a renowned training program in epidemiology at the forefront of public health emergencies (more on that below). Read more from The New York Times & Science.
The Trump Administration imposes multiple restrictions on the NIH, including a communications blackout, hiring freeze, and an indefinite ban on travel. A few days into the new administration, NIH was hit with multiple restrictions aiming to curtail agency communication with the public. While some believed these initial restrictions to be related to administration turnover, it quickly became clear that this was not the case. Many of these restrictions are still ongoing, but in some cases, have been modulated. Read more from Science.
Federal Funding & Academia
Funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) will likely be slashed under Trump’s proposed Congressional budget. In an attempt to punish NSF for what the current administration describes as the agency’s support for “woke ideology,” it is estimated that the agency’s funding (which currently resides at 9 billion and represents ~3% of the overall federal budget) will be cut down to 3 billion. Read more from Ars Technica.
NIH announces that it will restrict indirect cost rates to fifteen percent for all grant recipients. On February 7th, NIH announced that it would cap indirect cost rates to 15% for all institutions receiving a grant from the agency, both for all new grants and all existing grants. Indirect costs act as a means of covering research expenses related to equipment maintenance, administrative support, etc. Think of it this way: imagine if the NFL only paid for the players on the field. Imagine if they didn’t pay for turf upkeep, training equipment, stadium maintenance, etc. That’s what scientists and institutions across the U.S. are potentially dealing with. See NIH policy statement.
UPDATE: In response to a lawsuit filed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, a federal judge has ordered a pause to this restriction. This action also expands a pause from a lawsuit filed by attorneys general from twenty-two states across the nation against the NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Read more from The American Institute of Physics (AIP) & Time:
The Trump Administration issues an executive order instituting a federal funding freeze. One of the first–and most concerning–federal actions taken against scientific research began with an executive order aiming to freeze all federal funding. Study sections (groups that review and approve grant applications for funding through the NIH, NSF, etc.) were cancelled out of the blue, with no communication of when, or if, they would resume. Postdoctoral fellows funded by federal grants were left without paychecks and no idea when they would be paid. While the executive order was eventually blocked by a federal judge, the fallout was already causing scientists to panic about what could come next. Read more from STAT News & Nature.
Grants, Training Opportunities, & Graduate School
The NIH IRTA postbaccalaureate fellowship program is currently paused. Several hundred postbac fellows contribute to NIH research every year and represent a significant amount of research manpower for the agency. Designed for recent college graduates, this position also provides fellows with additional research training and support for applying to Ph.D., M.D.-Ph.D., and M.D. programs. For many, it’s a priceless training opportunity that equips them to pursue the next step of their scientific careers. See notice on website.
Some predoctoral students that applied to NIH’s prestigious F31 grant were removed from consideration. NIH’s F31 fellowship offered two different tracks for this year’s applicants, with one focusing on underrepresented backgrounds in science. Applicants that applied to the latter track were removed from consideration for the F31, despite the fact that the applications are identical for both tracks (with the notation of diversity being the difference). Read more from The Chronicle.
UPDATE: Some applicants have had their applications re-assigned to the original study sections that were supposed to review them, but not all.
The University of Vanderbilt appeared to temporarily pause graduate student admissions to assess program capacity given funding uncertainty. Through internal communications, Graduate School Dean André Christie-Mizell confirmed that there would be a temporary suspension of admissions offers in order to assess budgetary scenarios following freezes instituted on federal funding. The university has since communicated that it did not pause admissions and that action will be taken at the school-level to balance budgetary concerns with program needs. Regardless, rumors of programs reducing their admissions offers abound, and it is unclear how universities will adapt to the current instability surrounding federal funding. Read more from The Hustler.
UPDATE: It appears that more universities, such as the University of South California, are pausing admissions in response to the indirect cost restriction. Read more from STAT News.
Disease Monitoring & Epidemiology
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) “accidentally” fires officials working on the current avian influenza outbreak. As part of ongoing federal layoffs, the USDA fired agency employees who were contributing to monitoring of the current avian influenza outbreak in the United States. Realizing what these employees were working on, the agency is now scrambling to re-hire them. The rushed nature of these layoffs reveals just how blindly the Trump administration is approaching its goal of reducing the federal workforce as quickly as possible. It also raises the question of just how much damage it will create long-term for American science and public health. Read more from NBC News.
CDC layoffs include complete elimination of the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS). Colloquially called “disease detectives,” members of the EIS have been crucial in identifying and responding to disease threats both in the U.S. and abroad. Their removal marks a concerning step towards faulty and incomplete disease monitoring, which would put the United States at a significant disadvantage during disease outbreaks. Read more from Forbes.
The Trump administration purges federal websites and databases from the CDC website. A couple of weeks ago, in response to executive orders on surrounding gender and diversity, equity, and inclusion, the administration abruptly began taking down certain pages on the CDC website in addition to tools such as the Atlas Tool (which is used to track infectious disease rates). Some pages have returned, and some have not, but of those that have reappeared, scientists worry that data may have been altered or scrubbed. Read more from NPR & Undark Magazine.
What Does This Mean For Me?
If you’re not a scientist, some of the developments discussed above may not seem immediately relevant to your daily life. So, should you still be worried? The straightforward answer is yes.
Whether you work in science or not, federal funding for research is a significant contributor to your state and to the national economy. For every dollar invested into the NIH, the institute generates $2.50 in return–a number that quickly scales into the billions for most states. For example, in my home state of Florida, the NIH awards around 900 million dollars in funding to universities and research institutions throughout the state. This amount, in turn, supports nearly fifteen thousand jobs and almost 3 billion in economic output. (If you want to see how NIH funding contributes to economic activity in your state, you can check that out here). Reductions in funding will inevitably lead to job losses and millions–if not billions–lost in economic output. Importantly, this will affect not only the states, but the nation at large. If you want to learn more about the effects that cuts in funding could lead to, check out this article by the Center for American Progress.
That loss in funding will also have real consequences when it comes to studies of diseases like cancer or rare conditions that require additional research for treatment development. Hospitals and universities will very likely need to scale back, if not completely eliminate, ongoing or planned clinical trials for a wide range of diseases. Without funding, these institutions will not possess the resources or manpower to perform important and life-saving research. Not only that, they will not be able to use the research they have already performed to develop novel treatments or therapies. As Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said in response to the initial funding freeze, “If you’ve ever wished for a cure, for better treatment options for yourself or a loved one, this should feel personal.” Don’t just take our word for it, either–read this piece by Dr. Diana Fishbein, a scientist currently dependent on NIH research for development of novel lung cancer treatments.
Loss of funding also translates to a lack of resources for important public health initiatives, like disease monitoring and surveillance. With the U.S. on the precipice of what could possibly become another major pandemic, it is more important than ever to keep track of diseases like avian flu and understand how the virus is mutating and spreading. With the CDC’s EIS eliminated through federal layoffs, and with the USDA mistakenly firing experts who are currently involved with avian flu surveillance, it is already clear that the Trump administration is either unaware of or massively underestimating the danger of our current situation–something that could spell disaster not just for the country, but for the world. Additionally, Trump’s recently confirmed nominee for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has begun to threaten vaccine access and challenge the place of important childhood vaccines against diseases like measles and polio. If the danger of this mindset isn’t already clear enough, just look at the current measles outbreak occurring in western Texas.
Lastly, the current insecurity and risk surrounding the practice of scientific research in the United States will significantly affect the next generation of scientists, either by discouraging them from pursuing a career in science, or by discouraging them from doing so in the United States. The U.S. is currently considered a leader in scientific research, attracting talented researchers from all over the world to come to the States and advance their careers and their fields. However, with recent events, international researchers are being warned to avoid the U.S. and to pursue research careers elsewhere. Not only that, budding American researchers are beginning to look to other countries for their graduate studies and postdoctoral fellowships, leading the United States to lose its best and brightest–a phenomenon also known as brain drain.
In threatening our nation’s scientists and their research, we stand to lose in just about every aspect possible: in our nation’s health, in our nation’s economy, and in our nation’s future. The track we are currently on is one that is not sustainable. If things continue as they are, the damage to science and to our country will be untold.
What Can We Do?
For scientists, we are living through a grim period that only appears to be growing more concerning with every executive order and federal action emerging from the current administration. Friends and colleagues are being laid off, funding for our research seems uncertain, and none of us knows what science in the U.S. will even look like after these next few years. Nevertheless, this is not the time to accept defeat, but to instead focus on using our expertise and collective voice to communicate the importance of our work and defend it.
One way in which scientists can communicate directly with their communities and advocate against recent measures is by participating in Science Homecoming, which aims to foster networks of scientists who can communicate the value of our work to their local communities by encouraging them to write and publish with local papers. Through their website, you can identify local papers affiliated with your hometown, tips for reaching out to editors about potential pieces, and suggestions on what to write about. While it might not seem like the case in today’s day and age, local newspapers still reach millions of readers and can be a great source for communication with your community.
For scientists and non-scientists alike, one of the most important things you can do is to reach out to your House and Senate representatives and communicate your concerns about the myriad of issues we’ve covered here. Whether it’s concerns about your state’s economy, concerns about the halting of research for a disease that affects you or your loved ones, or concerns about the state of public health in your state or across the country–call and tell your representatives how this is affecting you and what you expect from them. If you’re unsure how to start, you can use tools like 5calls to find your representatives as well as message templates for specific issues. Our representatives are just that–meant to represent us. While calling or emailing may feel like a drop in the bucket, collectively, these calls and emails become major concerns that politicians need to address at the risk of losing their post during the next election. Don’t underestimate your power, and hold those in power to their oaths and their electoral promises.
Lastly, in addition to calling, you can consider taking part in public actions, such as the upcoming Stand Up For Science rally on March 7th, 2025. Taking place in D.C. and all over the nation, this rally aims to “defend science as a public good and pillar of social, political, and economic progress.” Through the rally, they seek three policy actions: securing and expanding funding for scientific research, safeguarding science from political intervention and censorship, and protecting diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility policies. In addition to participating in the rally, you can also sign up to lead a local version of the event in your hometown or help with organizing an already existing local event.
Whatever comes next, we need to face it together–scientists and non-scientists alike.
So, What’s Next?
The short answer? We’re not sure. Most of these issues are highly fluid and some of these orders will likely have to play out in the courts before a resolution can be reached. However, as we’ve shown above, the uncertainty of the situation is already beginning to destabilize scientific research across the country. The extent of that destabilization, and the ripple effects it will have, continues to remain unclear.
For now, How We Talk About Science will continue monitoring new developments and bringing attention to major issues and threats to science in the United States. We also recommend engaging with other outlets and keeping track of issues important to you. We particularly recommend Science’s tracker, which provides continual updates on science-related policy and Trump administration actions.
In a time of increasing censorship and misinformation, How We Talk About Science is committed to bringing you the most accurate and unbiased information possible–and we aim to continue doing that regardless of what actions the Trump administration pursues against science. We also aim to give a voice to scientists whose work and livelihood are being threatened by the current administration. If you have a story you would like to share with us, please feel free to reach out to howwetalkaboutscience@gmail.com or submit a piece to us through our Google Form.
We don’t know what the future may bring, but what we do know is that the only way to survive this period is to come together as a community and to advocate for what we believe in. We hope you will join us in this pursuit, too.
Thank you for summarizing the current state of the problem so clearly, and for describing concrete remedies any one of us can pursue. It's shocking how much science is now under siege.
Almost ONE month!