Sethuraman Panchanathan, who President Trump appointed as head of the National Science Foundation five years ago, resigned yesterday without providing an explanation. However, the context is clear: Last weekend, Trump eliminated over 400 active research grants from the N.S.F. and is urging Congress to cut the agency’s budget by 50%, down to $4.5 billion.
The Trump administration has set its sights on the American scientific community, which has been a vital source of research and innovation for decades. Significant budget cuts or freezes have occurred at organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, NASA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, leading to the dismissal or loss of funding for thousands of researchers.
This turmoil can be baffling: Isn’t science meant to benefit society? Hasn’t it played a critical role in managing diseases? Isn’t it crucial in our competition against China? Doesn’t it draw the type of immigrants the president advocates for? In this newsletter, we’ll use our analytical tools to help clarify these issues.
A Valuable Investment
The success of American research relies on a system that allocates federally approved funds to universities, national labs, and research institutes. This “knowledge factory” supports tens of thousands of researchers, attracts global talent, and produces significant scientific discoveries and Nobel laureates.
This process can be slow because scientific advancement is a gradual endeavor. Discoveries often unfold over time and require collaboration among researchers who undergo years of training. In contrast, startups and corporations seeking quick profits typically cannot afford to wait that long or take substantial risks.
Investing in science pays off; research spending can yield returns of at least $5 for every dollar invested.
However, Trump’s administration is less inclined to wait. It has pulled funding from university research on crucial topics like AIDS and pediatric cancer. Additionally, there have been widespread layoffs of federal scientists, including meteorologists from the National Weather Service and researchers at the C.D.C. A new space observatory, funded with $3.5 billion, is now in limbo regarding its launch.
Alienating Scientific Communities
Officials from the administration cite several reasons for their cuts, including budgetary constraints and efforts to improve government efficiency, as well as “protecting women from gender ideology extremism.” Many grants were eliminated due to their inclusion of terms such as climate, diversity, disability, trans, or women. Others drew criticism for requiring Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (D.E.I.) statements that were mandated by previous policies.
It’s clear where this approach could lead: American leaders have historically viewed science as a long-term investment. Will this administration stifle that vision? A significant portion of U.S. Nobel Prize winners are foreign-born, but an ongoing immigration crackdown has affected scientists like Kseniia Petrova, a Russian researcher now in detention in Louisiana. Reports indicate that Australian scholars are avoiding conferences in the U.S. out of fear of detention, as reported by The Guardian.
As the situation evolves, some American scientists are considering leaving the country. Nations like France and Canada are actively recruiting these researchers. A recent survey by Nature found that over 1,200 American scientists are contemplating work abroad, with a noteworthy 32% increase in overseas job applications between January and March 2025 compared to the previous year.
A Shift in Definition of ‘Science’
The threats to science extend beyond funding; there are more profound concerns. The Trump administration seeks to redefine what constitutes valid science.
One initiative involves shaping scientific outcomes to align with the administration’s views. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pushed to reopen investigation into a discredited connection between vaccines and autism, while declining to explore research on vaccine hesitancy. The N.S.F. announced it would cease funding research aimed at countering misinformation that might infringe on American citizens’ constitutional rights. Additionally, a Justice Department official has accused esteemed medical journals of political bias for not covering “competing viewpoints.”
Another strategy appears to be suppressing or circumventing results that clash with the administration’s stance, even if the implications are unclear. Public datasets related to air quality, earthquake data, and seabed geology have been eliminated. This raises questions: Why remove records that could guide future governmental actions aimed at pollution control or seabed regulations? Knowledge is sought to enable action: to preempt crises or foster improvements. However, when the administration is inclined to limit governmental activity, it may choose ignorance over enlightenment.
One effective means to curtail knowledge acquisition is to challenge who is permitted to collect data. The administration is associating scientists with the same liberal stereotype often applied to academics — referred to in Project 2025 as the “enlightened, highly educated managerial elite.” According to Project 2025, the N.I.H. operates under the influence of “a small group of highly paid and unaccountable insiders.” They suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency should incorporate “citizen science” and allow the general public to address alleged scientific inaccuracies and research misconduct.
Skepticism and debate are essential in science, much like in a democratic system. Such discussion is what drives progress. However, when calls for “further research” become tactics to obscure inconvenient realities, it raises alarms. This strategy has been used before, notably by the tobacco industry in the 1960s and more recently by fossil fuel companies.
Now, this approach is being utilized against the entire scientific community by the government. The nature of facts is being distorted: they are seen as elite, flexible, and sometimes false. When truth is destabilized, anything can be accepted as fact.
For Further Insights
Trump has instructed government bodies to prepare for deep-sea mining, an action that faces opposition from most other nations regarding industrial activities in international waters.
In related coverage, Alan Blinder delves into the scientific research at
Check out the video to learn more about Trump’s dispute with Harvard.
