Starting in early February, university laboratories, among other institutions leading scientific and medical research, lost billions of dollars in federal funding, a reality attributed to the Trump administration’s recent budget cuts in academia.
Most recently, in mid-April, the decision to freeze two billion dollars in multiyear grants to Harvard, along with a sixty million dollar contract, sparked outrage among academics and the media alike, claiming in a written response that the new administration’s additional demands were “illegal,” and even going as far as suing the federal government as of April 22nd.
A letter the Trump administration sent to Harvard on April 11th¹ demanded that the university reduce the power of individual students and faculty over the university’s affairs, report foreign students who commit conduct violations directly to federal authorities, and assign an outside party to every academic department to ensure it is “viewpoint diverse.”
While the administration’s letter did not define the exact meaning of “viewpoint divers[ity],” their actions indicate favor towards the implementation of conservative perspectives in the academic setting, regardless of any given department’s field of study.
In addition, the letter calls for the discontinuation of DEI practices by August of this year (2025), and “[for Harvard administration to] demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government” through unspecified means.
“It’s absolutely devastating,” says Jeremy Arking, a Princeton-bound high school senior from Baltimore interested in pursuing a scientific research field. “We’re seeing international students not coming here [to schools in the United States] for research because Trump sees them as the enemy.”
There is no question about the influence of foreign-born scientists. As of 2021, 43% of scientists and engineers with doctorate degrees identify as foreign-born, in addition to one-third of America’s Nobel Prize Winners, many of whom were involved in a STEM or research field.
However, the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns shift this dynamic entirely, turning prospective foreign researchers away from facilities in the United States, as well as making native-born researchers uncomfortable with their new environment. Between January and March 2025, applications for positions overseas rose by a whopping 32% more for the same positions than the previous year, as noted in a recent article by the scientific journal *Nature.*²
“To see this big drop in views and applications to the US — and the similar rise in those looking to leave — is unprecedented,” notes James Richards, leader of Springer Nature’s Global Talents Solutions team in the journal’s article, referring to the shifting landscape in higher education and research environments amidst further uncertainties on campuses.
The Trump administration’s broader demands attempt to restrict activity it perceives as unruly, in hopes of subduing student tensions amidst the Israel-Hamas conflict of this past year and a half. These actions intend to quell the recent unrest involving protest encampments on campuses nationwide.
While some of these attempts have been successful, ensuring protesters do not physically harm Jewish students through heavy police presence, many claim the Trump administration’s actions are misguided, as evidenced by these new policies’ reach beyond student life on campus, as this ‘new normal’ manifests in scientific research facilities at Harvard and beyond.
“[As a Jew], I think that the fact that these cuts are done in the name of combating antisemitism is sickening,” notes Arking, “it’s disingenuous to charge the [university’s] administration without caring about what Jewish students feel [about the protests]. Just because [Trump] is claiming these cuts [are in response to] antisemitism, it doesn’t mean they are.”
Arking was also quick to highlight the lack of relation between the university encampments and scientific research facilities, that the prosecution of one group, unfairly or not, should never coincide with an unrelated department.
Furthermore, alongside tensions with Jewish students, LGBTQ+ campus researchers affected by the budget cuts have also expressed criticism of the Trump administration’s demands regarding DEI, with many projects involving queer issues or scientists terminated.
"Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans,” read an electronic letter from the Trump administration to Vanderbilt University³.
This denial of the scientific value of gender identity research, a focal point in LGBTQ+ healthcare, pushes queer education back decades. Considered taboo until recently, scientific research into queer issues is still in its early stages as one of the only professional sources into LGBTQ+ studies, especially healthcare. As a result, its elimination could prove medically disastrous, keeping the American public in the dark about healthcare for an entire demographic of people, including research into health issues exclusive to the LGBTQ+ community.
Moreover, the letter’s overall erasure of queer Americans from the general population with the claim that queer issues “do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans” is both factually incorrect and inherently discriminatory.
In addition to one-tenth of Americans identifying as LGBTQ+ as of 2024, healthcare providers are prohibited by The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “[to] den[y] health coverage based on gender identity… and [are] required [to treat] individuals…consistent[ly] with their gender identity.”
In addition to constant challenges in the House and on congressional fronts since its establishment in 2010, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is potentially under attack from the Trump Administration, as evidenced by their previous claim to Vanderbilt, making this rollback a signal for wider erosion of protections for marginalized groups in healthcare policy.
Not only do these demands negatively impact ethnic and sexual minorities in research, driving prospective researchers away from US-based facilities, but they also seem to discourage younger, high school students from continuing to pursue research fields, reducing spaces for possible growth and sometimes outwardly denying them due to a lack of funding and resources.
Marlow Manison, an Ellicott City-based sophomore interested in medicinal research, expressed disappointment in the Trump administration’s budget cuts, particularly their effects on student opportunities.
“[Since the federal funding cuts,] it has been a lot harder for me to find a research program for over the summer,” says Manison, referring to the NIH (National Institutes of Health) student fellowship she had initially hoped to apply for this summer, only for it to have been defunded by the federal government and cancelled.
Prior to its cancellation, the program was renowned by academics and students alike for its prestigious staff and state-of-the-art labs, fully equipped for the needs of passionate researchers. “It would have been an amazing opportunity for me,” Manison wistfully adds.
Educator Dr. Joel Sunshine, a dermatologist, dermatopathologist, and biomedical engineer at Johns Hopkins University, often working closely with the NIH, also expressed displeasure with the Trump Administration’s funding cuts, noticing his dwindling number of colleagues, including students, potentially interested in research past college.
“After [the] Trump [administration] shut down federal funding, 2,000 people lost their jobs [at Johns Hopkins],” Sunshine reports. “Because of this, students are worried about what the [workplace] environment might look like [for the next four years] - it has been a major issue, especially for people in my walk of life.”
“In some way, the students are the most vulnerable in the system,” Dr. Sunshine notes. His students, ranging from dermatology, pathology, oncology, and biomedical engineering, had their programs reduce the number of accepted applicants due to funding cuts. Due to this increase in competition, many qualified students are left without opportunities, intensifying the pressure on those who remain.
But beyond the academic and professional toll, Dr. Sunshine emphasizes a deeper concern: the dramatic decrease in staff and student numbers, as well as their morale, reflects a broader social impact. These cuts, he explains, were made under the justification of addressing campus antisemitism, a move he warns could have devastating and divisive consequences.
“It’s scary to me that antisemitism will be used to discriminate [against] science, and what could wound on us [the Jewish community],” Dr. Sunshine mentioned. “It lets the Trump administration claim to be getting rid of antisemitism while letting true antisemites associate the attacks [on research facilities on campus] with the struggle of Jewish students.”
As Dr. Sunshine’s son and an aspiring researcher, current high school sophomore Noah Sunshine is no stranger to the plight scientists face amidst federal funding cuts. Interning at laboratories this past year and beyond, studying nanosurgery through cancer cells from mice and isolated cells, young Sunshine witnessed the dramatic plummet in research facilities as America transitioned with the Trump administration.
“You’d need to go far back [in American history] to see such a retraction from research,” Noah explained. “It’s the first time [an American administration] has done a complete one-eighty against anything like that.”
Against the brave new world before the research community, unlike anything seen before in the history of the United States, individuals are taking action in support of the STEM fields diminishing before their eyes. Among them, prospective researchers, politicians, college professors, and even high school students are advocating for the return of federal funding in the nation’s research facilities.
“Lawsuits will definitely follow,” Dr. Sunshine predicted at the time of the interview, just days before Harvard sued the Trump administration, claiming their constitutional rights as an academic institution were violated.
Legal action heightens the stakes, proving how far a facility would go to protect its studies and its students. While a potential loss against what is arguably the most powerful administration on Earth could prove disastrous for universities nationwide, this bold move serves as an inspiration for dissenters from any academic background.
“[Advocates should be] lobbying,” Noah urges, “You can email or contact your senators over the phone [and] tell them to vote [for bills benefiting] science.”
Unlike large, wealthy institutions like Harvard, for the average American, contacting one’s representatives is a practical and effective way for science advocates from all walks of life, regardless of their age, involvement, or experience in the field, to stand up to the Trump administration’s demands and make a difference.
While a Nature journal article indicates that 94%⁵ of its readers expressed a “high level of concern” for the future of science under the Trump administration, its audience is clearly reflective of the scientific community and not much beyond. Advocating for science as an average citizen could not only diversify its supporters but also inform others who are unaware of the extent of research funding cuts.
Among the scientific community, not all hope is lost. Current high school students, the next generation of researchers, are adamant about staying where they are and continually pursuing their careers, despite the current political climate.
“It feels alarming,” Dr. Sunshine assures, encouraging students to persevere. “But a career in science has a long life span, across many political terms.”
Over the summer, both Noah Sunshine and Marlow Manison will be assisting in laboratories, optimistic about the future of science against the odds.
As the scientific community braces for continued challenges, the stakes could not be higher for students, researchers, and the future of American innovation. Yet, its message is clear: science must not be collateral or a consequence of a brewing culture war.
Whether through legal action or personal perseverance in the lab, the next generation is already taking a stand—not just to preserve research opportunities, but to protect the very foundation of evidence-based progress. The future of science in America may be under threat, but it is far from abandoned.
Sources
¹ Letter from the Trump administration to Harvard
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/4/15/agencies-demands-to-harvard/
² Nature journal article
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01216-7?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20250425&instance_id=153287&nl=the-morning®i_id=262515911&segment_id=196711&user_id=1d1d12a080e0f80b394d28eb0ace5a82
³ Article containing letter from the Trump administration to Vanderbilt
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/14/nx-s1-5349473/trump-free-speech-science-research
⁴ Patient Protection Act
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK563176/#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20the%20law%20prohibits,consistent%20with%20their%20gender%20identity.
⁵ Nature Readers Survey
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01099-8#:~:text=Biomedical%2Dresearch%20heavyweight%20states%20Massachusetts,less%20than%20for%20other%20states
.png)