Trump's Science Slash-and-Burn Is Damaging the U.S. on the World Stage

This article was written by Sophia Lieuw-Kie-Song, Policy Fellow 2024-2025, and originally appeared in Real Clear Science. The views in this article are the authors own.

Scientific research has long been an integral part of United States leadership on the global stage. Attracting the world’s best and brightest, American educational and research institutions are renowned for their ground-breaking contributions, none of which would be possible without the robust federal funding they have historically received. President Trump’s crusade against these organisations has put the resilience of American research at risk. 

It is not a good time to be a researcher in the U.S. Through rescinding at least $2.5 billion worth of research grants in his second term, President Trump has left researchers without salaries and without resources to do their work. With no end to budget cuts in sight, President Trump risks turning America’s robust research ecosystem over to America’s enemies.

The research and educational organisations his administration has targeted were not created to push the current president’s agenda but rather follow where their research takes them for the benefit of their communities and society at large. Projects conducting research for at-risk groups are cut under the wide scope of ‘eliminating DEI’, despite their wider societal benefits. The National institutes of Health (NIH) was forced to cancel a project on anal cancer risk factors simply for using the ‘woke’ term “Latinx” in its abstract. 

Alongside President Trump’s ongoing legal battle against Harvard University on its federal funding and ability to enroll international students, he has also gone after the university’s research budget. Cutting almost 1,000 grants worth over $2.4 billion and federal funding that made up 11% of its annual budget, Trump continues to punish Harvard for campus leaders' inaction towards antisemitism since the October 7th attacks. Antisemitism is a valid concern, demanding appropriate recourse, but cutting funding neither addresses it nor holds those responsible for the university’s failures accountable. 

Trump’s anti-immigration sentiment has already given other nations an advantage, drawing those who, if not for President Trump, would have chosen to settle in the U.S. The scientific journal Nature issued a poll of 1,200 researchers across American institutions and found that 75% of them were thinking of leaving the country. Unpredictable immigration practices and budget cuts not only motivate current researchers to leave but put off potential contributors from coming in the first place. 

Countries around the world have been increasing their research investment to seize the rare opportunity to attract promising, prospective scientists. Canadian universities announced tens of millions of additional funding in hopes of enticing star talent that might have otherwise gone to America. The University of Helsinki in Finland promises American researchers the “freedom to think” at its institution, targeting those concerned with government involvement in their work. 

The most concerning campaign to seduce the world’s best researchers comes from China. From 2019 to 2022 the number of non-native AI researchers who left the U.S. for China after completing their PhD doubled from 4% to 8% and will likely only rise amid funding cuts. This wave of emigration is particularly concerning given the U.S.’s declining vaccine funding and research. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIH have faced significant budget cuts for vaccine research. Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist at University of North Carolian at Chapel Hill, says this premature cutting puts the U.S. in the vulnerable position of having “to buy drugs from the Chinese” in the future as “we’re in for multiple pandemics”.

If China becomes the most attractive place to be a researcher, the international collaboration that research so heavily depends upon is most likely lost. This consequence is not lost on even some Republicans. Susan Collins, Chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed her concern that the cuts will hurt America’s competitiveness in areas like biotechnology and yield ground to China. Alabama Senator Katie Britt met with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr to discuss why funding should continue (the University of Alabama is one of the top recipients of NIH money).

President Trump’s $40 billion cut is most likely too big for other countries to fill the gap, leaving questions surrounding the future of research. Even the most robust increases in funding, like that promised by the European Commission, only amounts to $566 million over three years. Meanwhile, China continues to ratchet up its research and development spending, which is on pace to eclipse America's spending.

The U.S. is in a precarious position. Will we continue to conduct the research that makes our economy the envy of the world, or will we cede this privileged role and risk stagnation?