Federal initiatives to scrutinize research grants for adherence to Trump's executive mandate
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has found itself at the centre of controversy following a series of policy shifts under the Trump administration in 2025. These changes, which have resulted in a funding freeze for postdoctoral fellowships, have sparked legal challenges, widespread opposition from the scientific community, and concerns about the erosion of peer review and scientific independence.
The heart of the issue lies in an executive order titled "Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking", which centralized political appointees' control over grant review and funding decisions. This move effectively removed decision-making power from career scientists and civil servants, assigning political appointees the authority to devise grant review processes aligned with President Trump’s policy priorities.
The fallout from these changes has been significant. Around 1,700 grants (15% of the NSF's portfolio) have been terminated, notably those related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), environmental justice, and misinformation/disinformation research. A federal judge recently upheld these terminations, reinforcing the administration’s stance on reorienting research funding towards priorities such as artificial intelligence, computing infrastructure, and military needs while ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
The scientific community has reacted strongly to these changes. A substantial portion of NSF scientists formally protested, with at least 149 federal scientists signing a petition expressing concerns over what they described as politically motivated and legally questionable actions. Similar protests and administrative consequences were noted at other agencies like NIH and EPA, indicating a broader pattern of unrest among federal scientists.
One NSF employee described the process as a "gut punch", while marine biologist Jasmin Graham, co-founder of Minorities in Shark Sciences, is navigating challenges due to the funding freeze. The longstanding mandates requiring the NSF to promote the participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields may clash with the directives outlined in Trump's orders.
The lack of clarity and communication surrounding the NSF's actions has added to the uncertainty and frustration felt by those involved. Thousands of grants have been flagged for review, creating a daunting task for the agency. The implications of the NSF's actions and the broader implications for research funding are still unfolding.
Economist Wei Yang Tham underscores the critical role that research grants play in supporting the next generation of scientists. Legal experts and scholars have raised concerns about the legality of terminating grants that are protected by congressional appropriation. The NSF has initiated a review of grants totaling billions of dollars, with the review continuing even after a federal judge's order unfroze the funds.
Amidst the uncertainty, some scientists find hope in the potential for meaningful change in STEM education and workforce development. Suzanne Barbour, a biochemist at Duke University, is one such individual. However, the road ahead remains uncertain, and the scientific community is grappling with these challenges. Julia Barnes, a cultural anthropologist at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, has expressed concern about the situation, stating that it demonstrates that the "United States is not a stable place to be a scientist."
Six NSF staff members have expressed significant apprehension regarding the recent decisions made by the agency. The NSF-funded scientists, particularly postdoctoral fellows, are facing profound impacts due to the funding uncertainty. The chain of events was set off by a series of executive orders signed by President Trump shortly after taking office, and the implications of these actions continue to reverberate through the scientific community.
- The NSF's policy shifts under the Trump administration in 2025 have been met with widespread opposition from the scientific community, raising concerns about the erosion of peer review and scientific independence, especially within the realm of education-and-self-development and science.
- The "Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking" executive order has centralized political appointees' control over grant review and funding decisions, allowing them to devise grant review processes aligned with President Trump’s policy priorities in areas such as finance and business.
- The controversial changes resulted in a funding freeze for postdoctoral fellowships and the termination of around 1,700 grants, including those related to health-and-wellness, mental-health, and workplace-wellness.
- Legal challenges have been mounted against the NSF's actions, with administration officials citing a reorientation of research funding towards priorities such as artificial intelligence, computing infrastructure, and military needs while ensuring compliance with policy-and-legislation and anti-discrimination laws.
- The lack of communication and clarity surrounding the NSF's actions has added to the uncertainty and frustration felt by those involved, particularly general-news outlets and crime-and-justice journalists covering the story.
- Amidst the uncertainty, some scientists and leaders in the education sector, like Suzanne Barbour, remain hopeful that meaningful change in STEM education and workforce development may yet arise, but the road ahead remains fraught with challenges, as highlighted by Julia Barnes' statement that the United States is not a stable place to be a scientist at this time.
