The Trump Administration’s War on Science: What It Means for the U.S. and Beyond

The annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have long served as a platform for researchers to showcase cutting-edge innovations. At the latest gathering in Boston, held from February 13th to 15th, attendees explored a broad array of scientific advancements, from gene editing and nuclear power to plate tectonics and ancient DNA analysis. Yet, even as they celebrated the progress shaping tomorrow’s world, American science itself is being reshaped—this time by political forces.

Only weeks into Donald Trump’s second term, many in the scientific community fear that key institutions are under threat. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) face potentially drastic budget reductions and staff cuts of up to 50%. Several federal agencies have already initiated mass layoffs of thousands of “probationary” employees—those recently hired or promoted. Meanwhile, research institutions dependent on National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding have been warned of tighter restrictions on how they can allocate their resources.

These measures are part of a broader initiative by Trump and Elon Musk to reduce the federal budget by $2 trillion from its current $7 trillion total. Scientific research, which receives approximately $160 billion annually in government support, has come under intense scrutiny. Beyond budgetary concerns, the administration has voiced ideological objections, claiming that research funding has been co-opted by “woke ideology.” The fate of these proposed changes remains uncertain, as many will likely face legal challenges. However, the scale of the cuts and the aggressive manner in which they are being introduced could significantly damage the country’s scientific infrastructure.

The NIH in the Crosshairs

The NIH’s $44 billion in annual research grants has drawn particular attention. Many institutions rely on these grants to cover 50% to 70% of their indirect costs, which include laboratory maintenance, equipment, and administrative salaries. The administration views this allocation as excessive and proposes capping indirect costs at 15%, aligning them with limits set by private foundations. This shift would force institutions to absorb billions in additional expenses.

Efforts to reform NIH spending are not new. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the Government Accountability Office highlighted the rising cost of indirect expenses, prompting discussions about implementing a cap. However, setting it at 15% is widely viewed as overly restrictive. Unlike private institutions, which often benefit from federal infrastructure funding, publicly funded research institutions rely heavily on these grants to sustain operations. According to Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of Science, the proposal threatens to unravel the long-standing partnership between the federal government and research institutions in building American scientific infrastructure.

An analysis by The Economist estimates that this cap could put $6.3 billion in NIH funding at risk. Research areas such as endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism could see their budgets slashed by nearly 20%, potentially stalling vital medical research. Politically, the move could also backfire: many of the hardest-hit institutions are in Republican-leaning states. In 2024, for example, Alabama universities received $386 million in NIH funding, supporting over 4,700 jobs and generating nearly $900 million in economic activity.

Legal Battles and Uncertainty

Despite these proposed cuts, their implementation remains in flux. Legal challenges have temporarily halted the NIH cap, with lawsuits filed by 22 states and national medical associations. Congress has also passed multiple bills explicitly preventing the NIH from altering indirect cost provisions. As the issue plays out in the courts, uncertainty looms over the research community, where long-term stability is crucial for scientific progress.

Beyond budget cuts, the administration is also seeking to reshape research priorities. Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, has previously advocated for cutting NSF funding to curb what he calls “woke propaganda.” Federal agencies must now review all grants in accordance with an executive order ending programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The administration argues that DEI initiatives undermine meritocracy.

Senator Ted Cruz, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, has taken this effort a step further, publishing a database of 3,476 NSF grants—about 10% of those awarded under Joe Biden—that he deems “woke.” A deeper examination by blogger Scott Alexander found that only 40% of the flagged grants were explicitly related to DEI. A broader analysis by The Economist, using artificial intelligence, put the figure at 44%. Most of the remaining flagged projects only briefly referenced outreach or potential impacts, while a few were caught in a linguistic net—for instance, one grant on earthquakes and tsunamis was flagged because it mentioned “trans-crustal processes.”

While removing DEI-related language from grant proposals may be feasible, it is unclear how researchers can seek exemptions for projects mistakenly categorized as ideological. Without a transparent process, some valuable research may be abandoned altogether.

Climate Science in the Crosshairs

The administration’s most immediate and far-reaching impact may be on climate science. Federal websites have been scrubbed of references to climate change, and the National Nature Report—a comprehensive government-funded biodiversity assessment compiled by over 150 scientists—was canceled just weeks before the first draft was due. Researchers studying oceanic carbon absorption fear they may have to omit references to climate change in order to secure funding.

Many climate and environmental projects are supported through appropriations from the Inflation Reduction Act, the climate-focused legislation passed under Biden. The Trump administration aims to dismantle these provisions, creating further uncertainty. NOAA, which plays a critical role in climate monitoring, weather forecasting, and atmospheric science, is particularly vulnerable.

“Project 2025,” a set of policy proposals for Trump’s administration co-authored by Vought, labeled NOAA a key player in the “climate-change alarm industry” and called for its breakup and downsizing. Recent reports from The Washington Post and Wired suggest that some NOAA staff have already been instructed to halt international collaborations. This move could have profound global consequences, as many countries—especially those with limited scientific infrastructure—rely on NOAA’s climate and weather data.

A Global Ripple Effect

American climate science is widely regarded as the strongest in the world, providing foundational data for researchers worldwide. A leading scientist at an international organization, speaking anonymously, warned that cuts to NOAA and other agencies will weaken global research efforts. While other nations may attempt to fill the gap, this shift presents an opportunity for competitors to challenge U.S. dominance in scientific research.

As scientists gathered in Boston to celebrate the “advancement of science,” many found themselves reflecting on a troubling reality: rather than shaping the future, American science is now being reshaped in ways that could have lasting repercussions at home and abroad.