The administration of Donald Trump has launched an unprecedented strike on US science.Credit: David Turnley/Corbis/VCG/Getty
One month has passed since the start of Donald Trump’s second US presidency. In a letter to the incoming president, Nature urged Trump and his administration to build on the nation’s legacy and achievements in science, and further boost research for the sake of prosperity and security (Nature 637, 517; 2025). The administration has chosen the opposite path, launching an unprecedented assault on science, on research institutions and on vital international organizations and initiatives.
Almost immediately after being sworn in as president on 20 January, Trump put his signature to piles of executive orders cancelling or freezing tens of billions of dollars in funding for research and international assistance, and putting the seal on thousands of lay-offs. Orwellian restrictions have been placed on research, including bans on studies that mention particular words relating to sex and gender, race, disability and other protected characteristics.
Trump’s siege of science: how the first 30 days unfolded and what’s next
Federal agencies and universities are in turmoil. Thousands of researchers are in limbo as they wait for a thaw on a highly questionable funding freeze. And around the world, millions of grant recipients of US assistance programmes have been abandoned.
It is hard to put into words the extent of the damage being done to the US research enterprise, which is of almost incalculable value to both the nation itself and the wider world. Organizations representing the global scientific communities are beginning to react. More need to speak out in support of their US colleagues. The US scientific and educational communities must know that they are not alone. An assault on science and scientists anywhere is an assault on science and scientists everywhere.
Individuals and organizations are challenging some of the Trump administration’s actions in the courts, and it might be that the White House is forced to moderate or reverse some of its decisions. But the direction of travel is clear: there is a desire to downgrade, if not eliminate, independent, science-based evidence and expert advice; there is also a rank disregard for international agreements.
Fire and fury
The administration is firing federal employees from national agencies, including those that employ researchers and that rely on research, often in disciplines that are key to protecting public health, the environment and people’s safety and security. It is making sudden and drastic cuts to public spending. Those affected include globally respected institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Meetings of NIH research-grant-review panels were suspended at the start of Trump’s presidency and remain so. The National Archives and Records Administration, the keeper of the country’s official records, is also affected, as are public libraries and museums.
Revealed: NIH research grants still frozen despite lawsuits challenging Trump order
On the international front, the decision to withdraw from or drastically scale back long-standing commitments will have severe consequences. The United States is often the largest contributor to global initiatives directly linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the world’s plan to end poverty and achieve environmental sustainability. The country also provides around one-fifth of the core budget for the World Health Organization (WHO), which Trump has already notified of his intent to leave. Although the United States will not formally depart until next year, the WHO’s more than 8,000 staff members have already been told by director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to put all but essential travel on hold.
Trump has also cancelled US federal funding for international climate-change projects, which totalled some US$11 billion in 2024, amounting to around 10% of annual global public climate finance. Alongside his decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, this is a severe blow to tackling climate change, and will delay efforts to boost finance for the countries most affected by global warming.
Aid freeze
At least one million women in countries around the world have lost access to contraceptive care as a result of a 90-day ‘pause’ on funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the world’s largest single-country source for aid, including scientific assistance. In 2023, the United States disbursed $72 billion in international assistance, some 60% of which was provided through USAID.
‘Targeted and belittled’: scientists at US environmental agency speak out as layoffs begin
The bulk of the agency’s more than 10,000 members of staff have been put on leave. Most, if not all, of its buildings are currently inaccessible, as is its website. Although life-saving programmes are technically exempt from any immediate changes, in practice there are few, if any, USAID staff or functioning financial systems available to keep the payments that fund them going. Funding from the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has disbursed more than $100 billion for the prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS since 2003, is still up in the air.
Together, these actions will make people in the United States and around the world less prosperous and more vulnerable.
Excluding inclusion
Another executive order mandated the cancellation of policies and initiatives in diversity, equity and inclusion, which the Trump administration has incorrectly described as illegal, radical and wasteful. Cancelling public initiatives that create inclusive and welcoming spaces, and stopping federal funding for the study of these issues, could cause harm. Equally, there is no justification for cancelling policies and funding for initiatives that recognize the complexity of sex and gender, something the White House wrongly calls “gender ideology extremism”.
These are unacceptable attacks on people’s rights and on academic freedom. They will halt, if not reverse, decades of progress in scientific research. Worldwide, the research consensus is that more granular, more disaggregated data are essential to achieving the SDGs. We also know that incorporating sex and gender into study design improves science and medicine, including diagnosis and treatment.
There are differences of opinion between researchers in all scientific fields. Discussion and further study are the best ways to reach a shared understanding. Shutting down scholarship is not a solution.
How to respond?
How, then, should those of us who are part of the global enterprise of education, health, science and engineering respond? One priority must be to denounce these actions, to shout about their negative effects, to support researchers and to defend their ability to work and study without fear for their jobs. Understandably, those working at — or even leading — federal agencies might feel that they cannot speak up, but researchers at other organizations, such as universities, scientific societies, businesses, labour unions and campaign groups have more freedom, and must exercise it by showing support for affected colleagues.
Are the Trump team’s actions affecting your research? How to contact Nature
Global scientific organizations must also show their support, including those who represent young scientists, scientific academies and researchers at risk around the world. We urge them all to speak up for their US-based colleagues — and the crucial work they do — just as they support researchers at risk elsewhere.
Nature’s mission is to “serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science”. For much of our 155-year history, the United States has been the global leader in research, including in its provision of funding for education and training in science, to the great advantage of itself and the wider world. With the changes now under way, the new administration seems to be inclined to recklessly consign that to history. We at Nature denounce this assault on science. And we encourage the global research community, wherever they can, to voice their opposition.
