Since taking office, President Donald Trump has initiated immense budget cuts across many areas, primarily attempting to slash federal research funding and restructure the role of universities, which sent shockwaves through American academia. 

Researchers, graduate students and university leaders have been left to deal with the consequences of sudden grant freezes, threatened layoffs and further repercussions that could change the landscape of higher education throughout this presidential term. 

These actions have been part of Trump’s campaign to cut government spending and reorient federal priorities. The administration has attempted to freeze research funding, halt pre-approved grants and change university policies regarding diversity and academic freedoms. 

Although courts have attempted to temporarily block some of these moves, universities, students and professors have grown concerned about the severity of the possible long-term impacts.

Researchers at the University have already begun feeling the effects. This has been seen through the Soybean Innovation Lab, a major agricultural development program, which was temporarily shut down. The shutdown of the lab eliminated 30 jobs despite its role in reducing poverty through agricultural innovation.

Since losing their government grant, the Soybean Lab has received an anonymous form of ulterior funding, totaling more than $1 million, to keep its doors open.

Wendy Dorman, graduate student researcher specializing in conservation and spatial modeling of grassland birds, received the Future Investigators in NASA Earth and Space Science and Technology grant for her work. This grant allowed her to focus on research without having to teach at the same time.

However, despite NASA initially approving her funds for next year, Dorman noted that the review times have been unexpectedly extended to the fall.

Dorman also outlined broader ripple effects and her concerns for the future.  

“I have witnessed students lose summer positions because NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have lost federal grants, and the NGOs have had to pull back on what they’re supporting in turn,” Dorman said. “Many of the cuts that would impact me are still anticipated, but the promise of a lack of funding and financial uncertainty is changing how agencies operate.” 

Faced with delays in key funding cycles, Dorman said she is reconsidering whether to apply for fellowships like a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. She noted that this program is likely to be eliminated, and the application takes weeks to prepare.

Beyond individual research projects, department morale has plummeted as members of academia have grown wary of the possible effects on their future careers and work. 

“Agencies that maintain biological data are shedding employees, either as they accept the buyout or early retirement — because they are concerned they’ll be fired later — or as they accept other positions,” Dorman said. 

She warned that the loss of programs like the Bird Banding Laboratory and the North American Breeding Bird Survey would have catastrophic effects. Dorman begged the question, “How can that not impact morale?”

Dorman is not alone in her uncertainty; many of her fellow researchers also experience similar apprehension. She is among many scientists who have experienced significant impacts from the Trump administration’s budget cuts. These limitations have influenced research that contributes to public benefit. 

“I think especially the cuts to public health, to the national medical research, has pretty visible impacts, and it has cuts to physics and scientific research, which impacts our national security and our competition with other countries,” said Tony Mirasola, graduate student studying physics and co-president of the Graduate Employees Organization. 

Mirasola fears not only the potential lack of national advancement these cuts may cause, but also the potential lack of interest in science in younger generations. 

“People who choose to become scientists often do so at a young age,” Mirasola said. “I am worried that this will have consequences far into the future, because young people can perceive that science is no longer being supported and valued by the public.”

Not only could this impact the future of those interested in the pursuit of knowledge in science, but it will also affect the current state of science and research that has already begun.

“Everyone is scared,” said Dana Green, a visiting postdoctoral research associate at the University. “Everyone is uncertain. Every day, we look at one another with a sense of understanding; an understanding that the goals, projects and life we wanted for ourselves may very well be unattainable now. At least for the foreseeable future, the effects of what has happened over the last three months will take years to fix, and the impacts on our natural world may be longer.” 

Green also pointed out that early-career researchers are particularly vulnerable. 

“Much of the federal funding goes to supporting students and postdocs who are the boots on the ground conducting research,” Green said. “As a result, many students have had their graduate position offers rescinded, projects have been canceled and some — myself included — are now taking their expertise out of the country.”

The Trump administration’s push has not stopped at funding freezes. Universities like Harvard, Princeton and Columbia have seen billions in federal grants frozen after refusing to comply with demands to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs and conduct departmental review to identify potential imbalances in perceptions.

Trump officials and conservative activists have framed the crackdown as an effort to counter “leftist capture” in higher education. However, university leaders argue that the actions represent the most serious threat to American academic freedom since the McCarthy-era Red Scare.

For researchers like Dorman, the bigger concern is the long-term damage to America’s global scientific leadership. 

“Federal funding has been the impetus behind almost every major societal advancement in the 20th and 21st centuries,” Dorman said. “Without federal funding, we wouldn’t have internet, clean water, GPS, modern medicine — the list goes on and on. If we abandon science, there may be small innovations, and there may be new products, but our position as a global leader in science and technology will be a thing of the past.”

Green warned that the cumulative effect would cause an erosion of global leadership in science, a lasting decrease in public trust and increased politicization of science.

“The U.S. was long considered a global leader in science, but erratic funding policies undercut that reputation,” Green said regarding global leadership.

As universities scramble to find alternative funding sources and protect vulnerable students, many in the academic community believe that only a broad public pushback can reverse course.

“Private innovation does not happen without public innovation happening first,” Dorman said. “The University has been hesitant in its response and doesn’t want to risk losing more federal funding, but I wish they would take a stronger stance against cuts and the illegal demands being imposed on them.”

Many researchers in the field also fear the possibility of America being perceived as less of a forefront for research and innovation. 

“I think America has one of the most well-developed university systems and public research systems of any country, and it would weaken the United States if these funding cuts are not reversed quickly,” Mirasola said.

[email protected]