Since taking office in January 2025, the Trump administration has implemented a series of large-scale layoffs and funding cuts, sparking strong protests from the scientific community. Federal research agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have seen over 2,000 employees terminated. Additionally, NIH’s indirect cost reimbursement rate has been drastically reduced from 50%-70% to 15%, severely impacting university laboratory operations. The budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF) has also been cut by two-thirds, while politically sensitive fields like climate change research face stricter scrutiny. These policy changes have led to a deteriorating research environment, with frozen grants, disrupted projects, and restrictions on public health, climate change, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) research. For example, NIH’s biomedical database PubMed was temporarily shut down, and clinical trials were suspended.
The core demands of the scientific community include restoring funding and jobs, defending scientific freedom and diversity, and protecting global competitiveness. Protesters are calling for an end to layoffs, the reversal of federal funding cuts, and the elimination of political interference in climate change and public health research. Former NIH Director Francis Collins publicly urged, “Do not harm the nation’s health research infrastructure.” Scientists accuse the Trump administration of prioritizing ideology over science, such as banning terms like “climate change” and “diversity” in grant applications, which hinders social and biomedical research. Protesters emphasize that science should serve the public interest, not political agendas. Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton warned that severe funding cuts could undermine U.S. leadership in global science, leading to a brain drain and weakening international collaboration.
Supporters argue that reducing indirect costs aims to cut bureaucratic waste and redirect funds to “direct research costs.” Elon Musk and others have criticized universities’ high indirect cost rates (e.g., 60%) as reflecting mismanagement. The government has labeled DEI programs as “radical left-wing policies,” claiming they distort scientific integrity. Republican Senator Ted Cruz and others defend the cuts as eliminating “political bias.”
Despite the large-scale protests, their short-term impact is limited. Similar to the 2017 “March for Science,” non-disruptive demonstrations historically have weak influence on policy, and long-term strategies such as litigation and lobbying are more effective. Organizers aim to increase scientists’ engagement in policy through public outreach and funding early-career researchers. Research institutions in the EU and the UK have expressed solidarity, emphasizing the importance of global collaboration. Several states have filed lawsuits to block NIH funding cuts, with a Massachusetts court issuing a temporary injunction. Meanwhile, scientists are highlighting the consequences of these policies (e.g., public health risks) to sway public opinion.
In the long term, prolonged funding cuts could pose a serious threat to the research ecosystem, leading to a “lost generation of scientists”—early-career researchers may abandon academia or shift to the private sector (e.g., fossil fuel industries), destabilizing basic science. Reduced U.S. funding may redirect international collaborations to Europe and Asia, and developing countries reliant on U.S. grants (e.g., for disease control) face immediate risks. The protests highlight the enduring conflict between scientific autonomy and political intervention, and scientists must balance professionalism with stronger alliances with the public and industry.