May 9, Senator Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released a white paper documenting proposals for changes to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), titled “NIH in the 21st Century: Ensuring Transparency and American Biomedical Leadership.” U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, of the House Energy and Commerce Committee then introduced a framework for change. But the broader danger is in the proposal’s isolationist philosophy.
While framed as a cost-cutting proposal for the NIH, the restrictions on partnerships with “foreign adversaries” will insulate the U.S. research community. By severing ties with the international community based on political interests, the U.S. leadership in fields such as artificial intelligence (AI) may be further at risk, depriving the country of datasets from other nations. If researchers lose access to global datasets with other nations, students entering biomedicine or AI could find their training outdated before they graduate.
International collaboration is not a national security risk; it is imperative to human progress. For example, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine emerged from decades of global mRNA research, including collaborations with scientists in Germany and Turkey.
The proposed reforms also include reducing 27 NIH institutes down to 15, merging institutes like the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities with other entities (e.g., environmental health). Aligning with the theme of diluted research, the Jan. 20 Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” mandates the termination of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and grants. This rhetoric undermines the benefits of DEI efforts, such as addressing systematic biases in researching funding and hiring. In fact, this executive order may lead to researchers avoiding topics like gender bias in AI algorithms.
American Psychological Association (APA) chief advocacy officer Katherine McGuire said the making of these proposals happened without stakeholder input or input from NIH scientists. According to McGuire, there were not enough votes to pass the restructuring framework on the House floor.
However, we already see the agenda progressing in real-time. Jan. 27, the Office of Management and Budget issued a temporary freeze on most federal grant programs. According to the memorandum from President Trump, agencies must review all financial assistant programs on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, each federal agency is required to assign a senior political appointee to ensure federal financial assistance conforms to administration priorities.
Given that 2 CFR 200.1 defines federal financial assistance as “[a]ssistance that recipients or subrecipients receive or administer,” this would impact the flow of research funds beyond grants. Larger institutions with bigger labs would be better equipped to monopolize resources and secure exemption from the funding pauses, while smaller colleges such as Occidental and minority-serving institutions like Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) face funding crises.
By requiring congressional oversight and allowing political entities to unilaterally cancel funding towards anything deemed politically unacceptable, the memo subjects scientific research to ideological litmus tests. More Principal Investigators (PIs) may find themselves spending time on writing grant applications curated to fit the current administration interests, rather than on research.
Though the order was later enjoined by two federal judges, the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, with policies oscillating between executive directives and judicial injunctions, threatens academia’s long-term future. Academia is forced in bureaucratic limbo with this tension. For researchers, the message is clear: survival over innovation.
The current policies are an escalation of past tactics. Trump EPA’s elimination of climate-related grant programs in 2019 aligns with the current pause on “Green New Deal” funding. Additionally, the withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord and World Health Organizations (WHO) signifies the extension of U.S. isolationism as an entity, going beyond funding cuts in academia.
It is likely that scientific progress will be stifled and reach stagnation, leading to the U.S. falling behind in development, contrary to President Trump’s purported America First ideology. Declining output may then fuel a narrative that “outsider” collaborations are unnecessary while attributing the underperformance to ideological enemies.
When ideology dictates policy, institutions can perpetuate harm through mundane compliance. The U.S. is fragmented into insular, politically palatable domains. When research is driven by politics, the public recognizes scholarship not as for the public good, but for partisans. Academia is thus at risk of falling back under the McCarthy-era scrutiny of research — but now from both the government and the public.
There is a barrier between people, between science and the public, between the U.S. and the world. But education has always been a practice of freedom. Historically, student activism has shaped federal science policy, from protests against Vietnam War-era military research to the March for Science in 2017.
Students must act —not just for their future, but for humanity. Because neutrality in the face of oppression is complicity. Because this is violence against the future, committed with the stroke of a Sharpie pen.
Contact Val Nguyen at vnguyen4@oxy.edu
