An executive order granting political appointees new oversight over federal scientific research funding approvals could shake the foundations of U.S. science—this is a widespread concern among experts in research and higher education.

The executive order, signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on August 7, requires political appointees at federal agencies to review grant applications to ensure they align with the government's "priorities and national interests." These officials should avoid funding several types of projects, including research that recognizes concepts beyond the male-female binary, or initiatives that promote "anti-American values," but the order does not clearly define what constitutes "anti-American values."

The executive order effectively formalizes the Trump administration's previous practice of rejecting or abruptly terminating scientific research funding that did not align with its priorities, such as projects related to climate change, mRNA research, and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

The requirements of this executive order mark a significant departure from the norms before the second Trump administration. Previously, funding oversight was handled by career experts rather than political appointees, and peer review was the core method for evaluating projects.

This move has unsurprisingly sparked backlash from some quarters.

Toby Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the Association of American Universities, said the executive order contradicts the core principles that have driven U.S. science policy since World War II—namely, funding projects based on scientific merit. "It empowers the ability to do what has been happening, which is to overturn peer review through changes and political priorities," Smith said. "This is essentially circumventing peer review, which is not good for U.S. scientific progress, nor is it good for the nation's health."

This could stifle scientific innovation. Research experts say Trump's executive order may prompt scientists to abandon research ideas, avoid entering the scientific field, or move to other countries to complete their work.

Michael Lubell, a physics professor at the City College of New York, said these policies could ultimately cause the United States to fall from one of the top scientific research nations to near the bottom. "This is the end of an era," Lubell said. "Even if things stabilize, the damage has been done."

A new path for research oversight

Under the executive order, senior political appointees or their designees will review new federal funding and ongoing grants, terminating those that do not align with government priorities.

This policy is a far cry from the research and development strategy established at the end of World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration. Vannevar Bush, then director of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development, decided that the United States needed a strong national program to fund research, allowing scientists to work freely without political pressure.

Lubell said Bush's strategy included some government oversight of research projects but tended to let the scientific community decide which projects were most promising. "This approach worked extremely well," Lubell said. "We achieved strong economic growth, we were the world's number one military power, and in science, whether in medicine or information technology, we were at the forefront."

But Trump administration officials, through executive orders and public hearings, have dismissed some federal research as misleading or unreliable and portrayed the U.S. scientific enterprise as being in crisis.

The August 7 executive order cited a 2024 report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, led by then-ranking member and current chairman, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, claiming that more than a quarter of National Science Foundation spending went to DEI and other "left-wing ideological campaigns." House Democrats, in an April report, described Cruz's report as "a mess," using flawed methodology and "McCarthyite tactics."

Trump's executive order also referenced recent incidents at Stanford University and Harvard University. In July 2023, Marc Tessier-Lavigne resigned as Stanford's president after an independent review of his work found significant flaws. In May of this year, Harvard fired and stripped tenure from a prominent scholar after finding she manipulated data in multiple studies to support her hypotheses.

The order states: "It is necessary to strengthen oversight and coordination and streamline agency grant processes to address these issues."

Lubell said scientific misconduct does occur, but the scientific community has done a fairly good job of self-policing through the peer review process. The scientific process works "extremely well," he added, and claims that the scientific community is in crisis are inaccurate. "Could it be better? Of course, you can always improve," Lubell said. "But there is no crisis."

Is it deterring the younger generation?

Michael Wilhide has worked as a molecular biologist and clinical laboratory scientist at public universities, private companies, and hospitals for over 20 years, researching how genomics affects health outcomes such as cardiovascular and kidney disease, and whether molecular tests can detect COVID-19 in patients.

However, after a research project he was involved in ended four months ago, he said in September that he was struggling to find another position amid a tough job market for molecular biology scientists. Wilhide speculated that the difficult job market may partly stem from uncertainty among research universities about whether they can secure funding from the National Institutes of Health. Recently, however, Wilhide said the job market appears to have improved slightly.

Nevertheless, since Trump's second inauguration, the NIH and other federal agencies have cut substantial research funding. Sarah Partridge, associate director for higher education at the Center for American Progress, citing the liberal think tank's recent analysis, said that as of the end of July, the federal government had cut $3.3 billion to $3.7 billion in research funding from over 600 universities, targeting its institutional opponents and projects that do not align with ideological goals. Partridge said more than half of federal research funding goes to medical and life sciences research, meaning the cuts could harm the United States' ability to find new treatments for diseases.

Lubell said that despite the tough job market, some scientists may revise their proposals and try to continue working under the guidance of the August executive order. But if the Trump administration suddenly cancels their funding, they may seek to continue their work in the European Union or China, which are actively recruiting American scientists. Others may leave the scientific field entirely. Meanwhile, young people may avoid working in an environment that requires careful speech, lacks job security, and where their work is not valued, Lubell said, or they may shift to higher-paying fields.

This situation keeps Wilhide up at night. He worries the United States may lose the next generation of scientists, as students who love science see the politicization of the field and the difficulty today's scientists face in finding jobs. "Middle schoolers, high schoolers, or elementary schoolers—when they see science being attacked by the current administration, will they still be interested in becoming scientists?" Wilhide asked.

In fact, past policies directing federal funding toward projects aligned with government goals have already hindered scientist recruitment, Lubell said. In 1970, during the Vietnam War, Congress cut U.S. Department of Defense funding for basic scientific research not directly related to military functions or operations. This made it difficult for many scientists to find jobs—the field took a decade to recover, Lubell said, who was a researcher at the Atomic Energy Commission at the time. "After that legislation passed, everything suddenly collapsed," Lubell said. "Most of my colleagues dropped out. They couldn't find jobs and left basic science for medicine, law, or finance."

Restricting curiosity

Smith said scientists often enter research projects without knowing what they will discover—leading to all sorts of completely unexpected advances. The late microbiologist Thomas Brock received an $80,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to study whether organisms exist in the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park, which were thought to be too hot for life to survive, Smith said. Brock did find bacteria reproducing in the hot springs—a discovery crucial to the development of polymerase chain reaction, a DNA sequencing method that advanced biotechnology, including helping create COVID-19 tests.

But under the August executive order, the federal government will only fund research projects that are likely to "produce immediately demonstrable results and have potential long-term breakthrough outcomes." "Government policy has the potential to become a tool that judges curiosity-driven research through the lens of policy priorities," Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said in an email. "By limiting what we can explore, what therapies or solutions will we lose?"

Many worry the executive order could narrow the scope of research projects and discourage proposals, thereby limiting creativity, Chad Ross, vice president of grants at Hanover Research, said in an email. Smith said it is acceptable for the government to set priorities that guide scientists' research focus. "There will always be certain areas of national need that receive priority for additional funding," he said. But problems arise when the government decides which categories of research constitute good or bad science, Smith said. Researchers need to follow the science, not expect to know results before experiments begin. "I worry that if politicians are now judging which science is the best science, they will judge based on what they believe will be found at the start of a scientific experiment," Smith said.

How will universities be affected?

Partridge said it is unclear which research areas the executive order might restrict. She speculated it could affect climate change research, but the order also states it will not fund research that harms public safety or promotes "anti-American values." Recent funding cuts also provide clues about which topics will be affected. Partridge said the government has cut or proposed cutting agricultural research, funding to support K-12 teacher training, and programs helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds pursue STEM careers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is also phasing out mRNA vaccine development research under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, who is known for his skepticism of vaccines. Smith noted that senior officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently resigned, citing the politicization of science.

The executive order and mass funding cancellations could also affect universities' ability to maintain their research capacity. Moreover, if funding is terminated due to priority changes across different presidential administrations, science will not happen in the United States, Smith said. Because science does not happen in a year, but rather over five to ten years or more, through funding that lasts three to five years, Smith said.

Carney said that in responding to the executive order, universities should factor uncertainty into their research calculations and prioritize projects most likely to be approved. She also said they should develop long-term plans to diversify sources of research funding, not relying solely on the federal government.

Higher education and research experts said the executive order could be helpful in some respects. The order directs federal agencies to simplify language in grant opportunity announcements to minimize "the need for legal or technical expertise in drafting applications." Ross said simplified language should reduce the complexity of grant application paperwork—potentially making it easier for international researchers and non-specialist reviewers to participate. Partridge said the order's language calling for research funding to be awarded to a diverse set of recipients—rather than primarily to institutions with strong track records—could help researchers from less well-known institutions secure funding.