The anti-scientific revolution: Trump’s policies are reversing America’s global dominance in academic research

Доступно на русском языке

In the spring of 2025, dozens of graduate students, professors, and other staff members at leading American universities received letters from the National Science Foundation (NSF) informing them that funding for their projects had been terminated. In the case of Dr. Casey Fiesler, an artificial-intelligence researcher at the University of Colorado, the letter did not even offer a formal reason.

“My grant proposal to the National Science Foundation for AI education was rejected,” Fiesler wrote in a post on LinkedIn. “Losing this funding means the work won’t be completed, the graduate student won’t have research support next year, and the students who were supposed to take part in the project will lose the opportunity to gain experience.” Fiesler suspects the grant was withdrawn because of a single sentence in the introduction to her paper containing the word “disinformation.”

The Fiesler case was not a one-off mistake; it was part of the systemic approach that NSF has adopted toward grants under the current administration. The sweeping cancellations of 2025 have affected thousands of other projects and tens of thousands of researchers.

Budget cuts and revoked grants

Federal agencies from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to NASA have come under mounting pressure due to political appointments and historic budget reductions across nearly all areas of federally funded research. To date, more than 1,900 NSF grants have been terminated, many of them related to climate or social sciences, and 4,000 NIH-funded projects ranging from cancer and Alzheimer’s research to HIV prevention have been abruptly canceled.

According to Nature, in three months following inauguration this past January, the Trump administration dismissed “thousands of government-employed scientists,” halted clinical trials, and slashed more than a thousand research grants in fields from vaccine development to neurobiology.

Dr. Gregg Gonsalves, a public health expert at Yale University, sums up the action as a sweeping purge of agencies, universities, and professionals. He compares the new Trump policy to Soviet-era “Lysenkoism” and the approach taken by China’s “Cultural Revolution.”

“We’ve lost an entire generation of experts,” Gonsalves says, warning that even if policy shifts after the 2028 elections, rebuilding the field could take decades.

Closed institutions

Not only individual projects but entire institutes have been affected. The Arctic Research Consortium of the United States — a nonprofit with a 40-year history that coordinated dozens of scientific projects in the polar regions — announced its closure after the NSF decided not to renew its grant.

NASA has also suffered significantly from budget cuts. The position of the administration’s chief scientist was abolished, prominent climatologists were dismissed from both NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey, and their teams were disbanded. Funding for attendant scientific programs has been cut in half.

These programs had produced some of the most notable achievements in recent space exploration, including the flight of the autonomous Ingenuity helicopter on Mars and the Cassini probe’s discovery of signs of water on Enceladus (a moon of Saturn), among others.

Similar cuts were made in the research divisions of the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, as priorities shifted toward industries favored by Trump — nonrenewable fuel sources and private space ventures. In short, Trump spared virtually no area of federally funded science.

Political censorship in science

Most of the upheaval stems directly from political directives issued by the new administration. Trump has intervened in science to an unprecedented degree, deciding which topics scientists may pursue, and making clear which they would be better off avoiding.

At the very start of his new term, Trump issued an executive order to terminate “radical and costly” DEI initiatives. Soon after the presidential decree, a memorandum followed requiring all federal funding to be frozen and reviewed for compliance with the new order. Although a court later ruled the memorandum illegal and ordered it rescinded, major federal agencies like the NSF chose to play it safe — keeping the freeze in place and gradually revoking support for the types of projects Trump had deemed “not really necessary.”

Elon Musk, too, played a part. On April 17, his pseudo-agency DOGE, created by Trump, gained access to NSF’s databases and computers and began canceling already approved grants. The next day, the NSF published its “updated priorities,” which aligned with directives from DOGE and Trump. Soon thereafter, the foundation began mass-mailing the so-called “death letters.” It was at that point that Dr. Filser received hers.

According to data obtained by The New York Times, most grant cancellations were done using a “Ctrl-F” approach — simply deleting applications that contained any of the forbidden words or phrases. Among the keywords were not only “DEI” and “inclusion,” but also terms such as “historically,” “trauma,” “gender,” “pollution,” “political,” “tribal,” or “status.”

The overhaul of research policy didn’t stop there. Under Trump’s proposed budget and his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the NSF was to see its funding cut by about 57 percent, and the NIH by 43 percent.

On top of that, on May 23, 2025, Trump unveiled an executive order with the self-congratulatory title “Restoring the Gold Standard in Science.” The order’s preamble promised to make federal research more “reproducible, transparent, interdisciplinary...and free from conflicts of interest.”

In practice, however, the order is likely to achieve the opposite. In comments to The Guardian, Nobel laureates and leading researchers compared it — once again — to “Lysenkoism” and dubbed it “fool’s gold.” Rather than fostering scientific progress, they argue, the order is designed to tighten political control over research. It greatly expands the government’s influence over science, granting White House appointees the authority to label any undesired study illegitimate based solely on personal judgment. It also gives Trump-appointed bureaucrats the authority to review and delay grants, and to penalize scientists who deviate from the administration’s goals.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) — a nonprofit organization founded by MIT researchers in 1969 to defend science from government interference — believes that American science is under siege. Citing the authorities’ repressive measures, UCS points to the exclusion of scientists and the public from government decision-making, as well as to pressure on independent advisory committees — 29 of which have been dissolved entirely, while nine others have seen their work disrupted. As one researcher put it, the White House “is trying to undermine the scientific method itself” by deciding which science matters and which doesn’t.

Make America Sick Again

Perhaps no field has suffered more from the administration’s attacks than public health. The Trump administration appointed ideologically driven figures to head medical agencies, placing them above scientific staff and gradually dismantling decades of progress in disease prevention and medicine.

At the NIH, budget cuts and other problems created by the Trump administration have led to the closure of numerous initiatives. To date, at least 5,400 NIH projects have been canceled — including research into new tuberculosis treatments, HIV prevention, drug addiction therapy, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and the use of AI in antiviral medicine. Only about 2,800 of those grants have been reinstated following successful legal challenges to government decisions.

Unsurprisingly, the administration’s ongoing attempts to remake health care and science in its own image have taken a toll on employees who remain. Former NIH director Jeremy Berg described the atmosphere inside the agency as one of constant chaos. “It’s like living in a washing machine,” he said.

In April 2025, Trump signed an executive order reviving his 2020 campaign slogan, “Make America Healthy Again.” In practice, the order turned public health policy upside down. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — an anti-vaccine activist, advocate of medieval pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, and, by his own admission, the host of a brain parasite — was appointed head of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Almost overnight, the leadership of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was replaced. Director Susan Monarez was dismissed after allegedly clashing with Kennedy and refusing to approve changes to vaccination policy “in defiance of scientific evidence.”

The impact on rank-and-file staff has been just as devastating. Thousands of federal scientists and public health officials have been fired or forced into early retirement. Layoff plans, apparently developed with input from DOGE, called for cutting 8,000 employees at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). So far, just under a thousand people have lost their jobs. However, counting those who accepted government buyouts or retirement packages, roughly 3,000 people — nearly a quarter of the department’s workforce — have left HHS.

Under Kennedy’s leadership, HHS disbanded entire divisions that had been studying vaccine hesitancy and long COVID. Writing in The Nation, Gregg Gonsalves notes that within three months, Trump and Kennedy had jeopardized disease prevention programs across the country.

Kennedy has already faced the largest U.S. measles outbreak in decades, which led to the first two child deaths from the disease since 2015. But that didn’t stop him from expressing support for advocates of “alternative” measles treatments — who also happen to be anti-vaccine activists.

In addition, under Kennedy, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (the CDC’s vaccine group) was dissolved. HHS then formed a new five-member vaccine committee composed entirely of Kennedy loyalists, half of whom openly oppose vaccination. The new committee immediately revoked the CDC’s flu vaccination recommendations, citing unfounded fears about autism.

Another handpicked team assembled by Kennedy was tasked with finding the “cause of autism.” It ultimately blamed acetaminophen, reviving long-debunked rumors about the drug. Kennedy also dismantled the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

These moves have horrified doctors and public health experts. Immunologist Céline Gounder of New York University told The Guardian, “Today we see rising threats to the public health institutions that have kept our world safe for generations.”

A taboo on “climate change”

Trump’s war on the “smart set” has placed particular focus on scientific fields related to climate change. Even before his first term, Trump was known for his unusually inconsistent stance on the issue. At times, he called global warming “a Chinese hoax made for China,” and at others, he insisted he did believe in climate change — though only in terms of “clean water and clean air.”

Regardless of his personal beliefs, during his first stint in the Oval Office Trump fully embraced the conservative anti-climate agenda, which has now become official U.S. policy. The memorandum issued after the executive order targeting DEI programs instructed all federal employees to avoid terms like “climate change” and “fossil fuels.” This policy is now openly enforced across agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to NASA.

Interagency cooperation has also been dismantled. In June 2025, the Department of Defense halted the collection, processing, and sharing of data used by scientists to forecast hurricanes. Soon after, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced plans to eliminate several key climate and weather research centers. NOAA’s educational website, climate.gov, which focused on public climate awareness, was also shut down.

At the EPA, which is also led by a new Trump appointee, two internal scientific advisory boards were dissolved, and the research and development division was slated for closure. The agency later stated it no longer intended to enforce drinking-water protection standards against so-called “forever chemicals” — virtually indestructible synthetic fluorinated compounds — and would discontinue its greenhouse gas monitoring program.

Many computer science and AI projects are now subject to additional scrutiny under executive directives requiring the political review of all grants. These reviews are often based on far-right conspiracy narratives, such as the “anti-woke AI” or “gender ideology” orders.

Global repercussions

Trump’s assault on science extends far beyond the borders of the United States. Many developing countries had long relied on U.S. support and partnerships with American scientists across a wide range of research fields. Science columnist Elizabeth Finkel of Pearls & Irritations notes that cuts to USAID funding and vaccination programs have already dealt a severe blow to international organizations such as the Gavi vaccine alliance and are directly leading to preventable child deaths.

Even traditional U.S. allies are bracing for the worst. Large international research initiatives often collaborate with American institutions and often depend on U.S. federal grants. Canada is among the countries likely to feel the effects of Trump’s science policies most acutely: 31 Canadian organizations, including the country’s leading universities, had received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. At least seven of them have now lost that funding entirely, while others are facing deep cuts. Although such grants typically accounted for only around 1-2 percent of Canadian university budgets, the individual projects they supported risk being cancelled.

Beyond the financial impact, the extreme politicization of science is also making collaboration between American researchers and their international counterparts increasingly difficult. According to Nature, scientists from Australia, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Canada working on U.S.-linked projects are receiving bizarre questionnaires from the U.S. government. Among other things, the forms ask whether the researchers are involved in work related to DEI, climate change, or “gender ideology,” and whether their organizations cooperate with anyone deemed “socialist,” “communist,” or “anti-American.”

Canadian scientists also report growing reluctance among their U.S. colleagues to collaborate. Despite a long tradition of joint research, American partners increasingly cut off contact, refuse to share data, and have generally become more guarded.

Another serious issue involves foreign students in the U.S. They have become victims not only of the assault on science but also of the nationalist and nativist sentiments fueled by Trump and his team. In the summer of 2025, the White House, through the Department of the Interior, accused Harvard University of inciting violence and antisemitism and of “working for the Chinese Communist Party.” The administration even sought to revoke the university’s certification to admit new foreign students.

That decision was, of course, overturned by the courts. But soon after, the White House put forward another proposal — to restrict the issuance of visas to foreign students. On top of that, Trump attempted to ban all Chinese students from entering the United States and to revoke the visas of those already studying there.

This climate of visa uncertainty and hostile rhetoric is taking a toll on American universities. A Harvard representative admitted that the threat of travel bans and frozen funding has already discouraged some prospective applicants.

On the other hand, the situation may end up benefiting America’s traditional partners. While Trump is slashing science budgets across the board, neighboring countries are moving in the opposite direction, increasing their investments. A Nature survey in the spring of 2025 found that 75 percent of U.S. academics are considering leaving the country — most often for Canada or Europe. Both in academia and in the private sector, Europe is actively discussing how to take advantage of this prospective American brain drain.

Long-term consequences

Many researchers who survived the “purge” are now trying to figure out what to do next. Members of the National Academy of Sciences, for instance, published an open letter titled “The Voice of Science Must Not Be Silenced” following the wave of mass layoffs and budget cuts. Medical researchers and climate scientists have openly protested, warning of “long-term damage” to public health and fundamental research. Leading academics say they are already seeing the effects in universities.

At Harvard, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences announced in October 2025 that it would cut the number of incoming graduate students by more than half for the next two years. Some departments will lose the ability to admit graduate students altogether, while others — such as the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology — will be limited to three students instead of twelve. The administration’s freeze on federal grants, combined with new taxes on university endowments, has left Harvard facing a massive deficit.

Trump’s second administration has waged an unprecedented — and depressingly effective — campaign to reshape American science according to its own ideological principles. With every executive order, the grip of the Trump administration and far-right ideologues tightens further.

Can the country’s scientific capacity recover? There is reason to fear the damage may be irreversible — at least in the short term. “It’s hard to overstate how serious this is,” epidemiologist Alan Bernstein, former head of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, told The Atlantic. “It’s crippling for the institutions that support science in the U.S.”