Harvard University has imposed a temporary freeze on the Faculty of Employment. Columbia University is working to cut $400 million with federal funding. California Institute of Technology fills the postdoc positions. Researchers at the University of Washington have wondered about climate and health grants after government sites went offline.
These are just a few of the confusion that President Donald Trump has caused by a radical change to the federal government. While the private sector has historically provided more funding for research and development in the United States, experts say that Trump’s mass shootings and the billions of dollars allocated by Congress could have ripple effects on American scientific companies for years to come.
Many personnel and financial cuts are under the banner of government rationalization. This is an idea defended by billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
Some of these moves have been challenged in court, with some being pending. However, interviews with more than 25 professors, graduate students, other academic researchers, and experts in the public, private and non-profit sectors found that research has already stopped in some places, suppressing others elsewhere.
Experts warn that cutbacks risk slowing down the pipeline of US-growing science talent. If Congress needs to embarrass them, it fundamentally changes the system that allowed the United States to become the world’s leading hub for research since World War II.
“This is an ecosystem that benefited everyone and kept the United States at the forefront,” wrote Fiona Harrison, chairman of Caltech’s Department of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy, via email.
“The situation puts our country’s ability to remain at the forefront of science and engineering by reducing or eliminating young technical talent,” she adds.
The government was an important source of data in areas ranging from weather to health. For example, investments in the National Weather Service and its support capabilities have enabled the growth of the commercial weather forecasting industry.
According to Jeffrey Lazo, an independent economist who tracks the value of US forecast services, these systems generate at least $85 billion in economic benefits, or more than 20 times the government spends. “Without federal data and observations, it would be very difficult to say there are private weather companies,” he says.
The recent shootings and voluntary departures of hundreds of people from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the Weather Service, have three local forecasting offices cut the collection of basic data, and a total launch of one site in Cotzeview, Alaska.
“Remote launch sites are where some of the most valuable data came from,” says John Dean, co-founder of AI weather forecasting startup Windborne Systems. “Losing these observations means poor prediction quality.”
Dean says that companies that collect data using their own weather balloons are talking about how they can fill the newly created gap with NOAA. The agency confirmed it was in contact with the startup, adding that the issue is “still under review” by weather services.
In February, the National Institutes of Health said it was cutting the reduction rate to 15% in grant overhead. The lab typically covers more than half of these costs. A Massachusetts District Court judge curbed the cuts last week, but the potential change is the weight of researchers.
“Every day there was something new and I wasn’t ready, so my colleagues weren’t ready,” says Alexandra Tate, a sociologist and lecturer at the University of Chicago. She has two NIH grant proposals worth nearly $650,000 on RIMBO. “I don’t know where my career is heading from here.”
Cancellations at other agencies have already led to unemployment.
The Social Security Administration notified researchers at a consortium of six academic centers, notifying them that their multi-year grants were suddenly cancelled on February 20, according to Teresa Ghilarducci, a researcher influenced by the new schools’ economics division cancellation and chairperson.
The cancelled grant funded research on retirements that informed federal policymaking, but affected the work of more than 50 people at the University of Wisconsin Madison University, including the termination of five senior researchers, says Ghilarducci, who hopes for more job losses at other centers.
The White House, Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment.
As individual researchers tackle funding limits, U.S. universities are responding by limiting spending in ways that will affect operations over the coming years.
Harvard, Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have all recently announced employment freezes.
Meanwhile, Johns Hopkins University has cut around 2,000 positions in the US and about 250 positions in the US following the end of more than $800 million in the US International Development Grant. The university is the top recipient of Research Funding and NIH Money.
At the same time, schools are facing even more pressure from the Trump administration. On Friday, the administration shored up its investigation into allegations of racism focused on 45 schools. This adds to 60 separate investigations on the institution to see if they are violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by their inability to protect Jewish students.
“This is not one of the standard deviations that are far from normal. This is not two standard deviations that are far from normal. Suresh Venkatasubramanian, computer scientist at Brown University and assistant director of science and technology policy for former President Joe Biden, said:
Researchers at the start of their careers are particularly vulnerable. West Virginia University says it is restricting admission to doctoral health programs due to “unexpected budget challenges.” Citing “fundraising uncertainty” and high acceptance rates, Iowa State University says some departments have revoked offers to graduate students who have not officially accepted their spots.
“Unfortunately, the full power of science was only evident after sending an offer to graduates,” says Harrison, chairman of Caltech. The university will not withdraw its offer, but she says “it’s very likely that next year will significantly cut admissions,” and may not acknowledge that “there is absolutely no graduate students in many fields of science and mathematics.”
The US economy has been closely linked to scientific enterprises since World War II. The Federal Bank of Dallas estimates that the return rate of non-displaced government research and development over the past 80 years ranges from 150% to 300%, suggesting that the federal funds will effectively pay themselves over time.
According to the National Science Foundation, the private sector offers the largest share of R&D funding in the United States, while the federal government offers important backstops, including science that wants to be commercialized quickly.
The private sector will feel the impact of losing “basic research in areas that don’t fund themselves,” said Diane Sousvine, a computer scientist at Tufts University and former chairman of the Science Foundation’s board of directors. “We miss important areas and take the risk of technical surprises if there are too many federal pullbacks.”
Northwestern University stem cell biologist and NIH grant recipient Carol Lavonne said the decline in graduate students would also result in a shallow pool of experts for the biotech industry to hire.
As uncertainty grasps US research institutions, other countries are trying to poach American talent. At least one French university is pitching itself as a “safe place for science.” China is also increasing its adoption.
“We’ve already seen China’s fired scientists post advertisements to move there and work,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a ranking Democrat for the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, in an emailed statement.
“If we decide to give up on the excellence we had in scientific research, we will be totally stupid,” says Shirley Tillman, former Princeton University president and molecular biologist.
