Feb 8, 2025 Story by: Editor
Last week saw a whirlwind of disruptions in Washington, D.C., as several U.S. science agencies abruptly shifted their operations to comply with a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. These orders, targeting what Trump refers to as “woke gender ideology,” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), foreign aid, the “green new deal,” and support for “nongovernmental organizations that undermine the national interest,” prompted agencies to halt new awards, reassess existing grants, freeze grantee access to allocated funds, and suspend grant-review meetings. Additionally, some agencies removed calls for proposals, took down websites, and restricted access to public databases covering now-prohibited topics.
The situation escalated further with a White House memo issued on 27 January, which sought to freeze large portions of federal spending that were deemed to conflict with the executive orders.
The rapid succession of actions left many researchers unsettled and uncertain about the future.
Agencies Respond Amid Legal Pushback
As of press time, some agencies had reconsidered their initial measures. The National Science Foundation (NSF), which had restricted access to its cash management system, lifted the hold on 2 February. Meanwhile, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), though it had not frozen grants, had canceled key funding meetings but planned to resume some proposal review panels. Additionally, two federal judges intervened, blocking the White House memo that had frozen funding, prompting the administration to withdraw it.
However, despite these developments, thousands of researchers at academic institutions and nongovernmental agencies dependent on federal grants remain in limbo. Lawmakers, particularly Democrats, have voiced strong objections, arguing that agency efforts to implement Trump’s orders conflict with established laws governing science agencies.
“These laws are not optional, and they cannot be unilaterally wished away by executive order,” warned Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA), the senior Democrat on the House science committee, in a 2 February letter urging five major research agencies to push back against the restrictions.
With tensions running high, further upheaval appears likely.
Work and Funding Suspensions
The White House memo triggered widespread confusion among institutions that distribute federal research grants. Some preemptively instructed researchers to suspend travel and purchases tied to those funds, causing immediate financial strain. NSF’s payment freeze led to complaints from postdocs on social media who found themselves unable to cover rent and other expenses.
Following a legal challenge, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on 31 January to block the memo’s implementation, with a second judge extending the order later in the week. However, while the memo was ultimately rescinded, Trump’s executive orders remain in effect.
For some agencies, this has meant halting ongoing research or informing scientists that DEI and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives are no longer considered priorities.
On 23 January, NASA directed all grantees and contractors to “immediately … cease and desist all DEIA activities.” One of the first casualties was a program designed to connect NASA mission scientists with college students from underrepresented backgrounds, which included mentorship training.
Similarly, on 27 January, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued its own directive, and the next day, its $8 billion Office of Science withdrew a requirement mandating researchers to submit a plan for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) with every proposal. DOE further instructed reviewers assessing ongoing proposals to disregard PIER plans, clarifying that these would no longer influence funding decisions.
A physicist familiar with DOE’s policies, speaking anonymously to preserve professional relationships, described the move as a return to previous norms. “The Office of Science didn’t get into DEI with exuberance, and it didn’t get out of DEI with exuberance,” the physicist quipped.
Scrutiny of Existing Grants
NIH has clarified that it is not actively reassessing already awarded grants, though it is reviewing certain language in proposal announcements. NSF, however, has implemented a more structured process to identify grants that may conflict with the executive orders.
According to individuals with direct knowledge of the process, NSF senior officials have selected 10,000 grants from its 50,000 active awards for review, using keyword searches for terms such as “diversity,” “inclusion,” “women,” and “race.” While many references, such as those related to plant diversity, were excluded, approximately 1,200 grants—most from NSF’s education directorate—remained under scrutiny.
Among the grants receiving close examination are those under NSF’s long-standing program supporting scientists in historically underfunded rural states.
While it remains uncertain how many projects will be impacted, an NSF staffer, speaking anonymously, stated that the objective is to “make sure that every [active] award is fully funded,” emphasizing that all grants were initially chosen for “both scientific merit and broader impacts.”
New Awards on Hold
Following Trump’s inauguration, NSF suspended the posting of new awards, likely in anticipation of the review process. Although the pause was still in effect at press time, sources within NSF anticipated that it would be lifted once the review was complete.
Meanwhile, NIH is subjecting applications for grant renewals or new proposals to increased scrutiny. NIH sources indicate that proposals with DEIA components will either be rejected outright or require removal of such elements before being considered.
Data and Solicitations Removed
A 29 January memo from the Office of Personnel Management directed agencies to dismantle web pages and discontinue projects that “inculcate or promote gender ideology.” As a result, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed multiple online resources, including pages discussing race and those containing LGBTQ references. The purge also affected access to CDC data sets, including youth risk behavior surveys and the social vulnerability index, which assesses community resilience to natural disasters.
Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan, described the data loss as severe. “I knew it was going to be bad, but I didn’t know it was going to be this bad,” she said, adding that she spent half a night downloading influenza surveillance data. “It’s like a data apocalypse.”
NIH staff also withdrew descriptions of DEIA-related funding programs. For instance, the NIH Science Education Partnership Award, which supports STEM education initiatives, was among several training grant solicitations that were altered or made to appear expired.
“Our country is hobbling ourselves by canceling these programs,” lamented cell biologist Needhi Bhalla of the University of California, Santa Cruz. “These undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs bring important, unique, and novel insights and breadth to solving challenging, scientific problems.”
Even NIH’s descriptions of clinical trials and studies recruiting diverse cohorts have been revised to clarify that the goal is inclusivity rather than preference for any particular group. However, some researchers fear that these adjustments may not be sufficient to satisfy political appointees within the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH’s overseeing body.
Uncertain Future for Federal Science Funding
NSF has similarly taken down online program announcements, including ongoing solicitations and new calls for research proposals, in some cases removing all traces of their existence. Unlike NSF’s standard practice of archiving retired solicitations, these removals appear to be more sweeping in nature.
As agencies await further guidance from the White House on executing Trump’s executive orders, grantees face growing uncertainty over compliance expectations. The stakes are particularly high, as NSF has already reminded institutions that failing to adhere to the new directives could result in grant terminations.
The full implications of these sweeping changes remain to be seen, but for many in the scientific community, the past week has been a stark reminder of the precarious intersection between research and politics.
Source: Science
