What’s going on with science in the Trump administration?

The new administration’s flurry of mandates and executive orders have been cause for confusion. Here are the facts.

By Alicia Szczesniak

Within his first month of his second presidential term, President Trump has completely overhauled multiple branches of government. About 200,000 federal workers across multiple agencies have been laid off, and additional thousands have accepted buyouts from their position. Ultimately, this means that out of the roughly 3 million federal employees, about 6-7% have been laid off or placed on administrative leave. All of this is an effort from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut federal spending and streamline the government.

But some of the most impacted agencies are focused on scientific data collection, research and development, such as the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of Energy and the Department of Health and Human Services. Now, thousands of Americans are suddenly unemployed. However, this may also slow scientific development. 

President Trump has also withdrawn funding from projects that include research on certain topics. For example, his administration has withdrawn funding from any research that contains the word “climate”. Alongside this, anything containing the term “climate change” has been removed from government websites. This has caused many scientists and researchers to scramble to rewrite their work to pass the new administration’s standards. If they fail to comply with the new standards, they risk losing funding for their projects. 

And climate change is not the only term coming under fire in scientific research. According to Reuters, two FDA staffers (who wished to remain anonymous for fear of potential consequences) stated that they were issued a list of words that have been banned in external communications, such as “woman”, “disabled”, “underserved”, “underrepresented” and “elderly”. 

However, the White House has disputed this, claiming that it was a misinterpretation of an executive order. That being said, the White House did also uphold the order to eliminate usage of the words “gender”, “inclusion”, “identity”, “diversity”, “inter”, “intersex”, “equity”, “equitable”, “transgender” and “trans”.

This was also issued to other federal agencies. For example, the CDC was ordered to comply with the list of banned terms as well. Alongside this, an order was issued mandating that the CDC must pause all papers that are set to be published. This is so they can undergo review by the Trump administration. Furthermore, the CDC has advised all researchers to remove their names from papers they co-authored with someone outside of the organization.

Additionally, the CDC removed web pages pertaining to HIV and AIDS in order to meet the new standards. While many pages have been restored, some have not. This is because many of those pages included terms such as “transgender”, which goes against President Trump’s executive order stating that the federal government only recognizes two sexes in an effort to combat “gender ideology”.

Universities have faced issues from the barrage of mandates, too. The array of vocabulary that is no longer accepted in scientific research under the Trump administration has left many researchers scratching their heads. According to Scientific American, at least one university has advised its researchers to avoid using the term “biodiversity” in order to avoid being flagged by AI-based grant proposal reviewers. But, for many universities, the response has been lackluster, and the directions given to researchers and students has been vague, leaving many uncertain of the future of their research. 

For example, the University of Colorado, Boulder has stated that until clarified, what is considered DEI in research should be interpreted broadly. However, after the courts blocked the federal spending freeze, they have urged their researchers to continue with business as usual. This confusion has been felt in many universities across the country. Alongside CU Boulder, a spokesperson from Arizona State University stated that several federal agencies have sent the institution notices saying they will discontinue funding certain projects at the university.

But perhaps one of the most affected organizations was the National Institute of Health. The NIH is the center of biomedical and public health-based research in the United States. But, since the new administration’s start, there have been a few roadblocks in research and funding.

Namely, the Trump administration prevented the NIH from posting new notices in the Federal Register. This disallowed them from holding meetings to discuss where research funding should be sent, with NPR reporting that this prevents 16,000 grant applications from being reviewed for $1.5 billion in funding. Bear in mind, the NIH has a budget of roughly $48 billion, meaning that roughly 3% of the organization’s funding is currently being prevented from being sent to universities and research institutes across the country. As a result of the funding freeze, and with no end in sight, many fear that labs will be unable to hire personnel or recruit study patients for clinical trials. This may lead to a massive delay or outright loss of critical research on everything from infectious diseases to heart problems to allergies. 

However, not everyone is quick to judge. Philip H. Phan and Judge Glock, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and the head of research at the Manhattan Institute, respectively, believe that this may not be a bad thing. In an article posted to the City Journal, the two stated that this overhaul of funding may force universities to spend the money more wisely, reducing the amount spent on indirect or “overhead” costs.

Additionally, they believe that universities may have to compete more wisely for the limited funding, potentially allowing smaller private universities to get more money. They also believe that the emphasis on transparency and efficiency may improve public trust in research, which has noticeably decreased since the pre-COVID-19 years.

Whether or not any of this will come to fruition is up in the air, as 22 states and several organizations have filed lawsuits against the federal government’s funding overhaul, claiming that the cuts would cause “irreparable harm” to research. Additionally, a federal judge has temporarily blocked the cuts. However, this likely is not over, and may well be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, leaving the future of science and research up in the air. 

Wanna chat? Email Alicia at as589820@ohio.edu, or follow her on instagram at @alicia_szcz