How a Second Trump Administration Might Attack US Science [April 2024]

This is an essay from spring 2024 about how US science could be threatened by a potential second Trump administration, written by Noah Rosenblum and myself. We ultimately never published it, in part because we didn't want to give any hints to Trump allies about how to attack US science. In retrospect, it doesn't seem like we should have been concerned about that: they knew what to do.

This piece is the result of collaborative research we did studying what Project 2025 planned for NIH and government agencies, what Trump allies were saying about "taking over federal grantmaking," and how they could do so via legal action, backed by the Roberts Court's disdain for expertise and agency independence. Despite lower court wins defending science, these threats — from this White House, from Project 2025, and from the Roberts Court — have not gone away.

This reflects our views as of the time of writing. Although the big picture was correct, there are a few things that we got wrong or overemphasized. Our views have also evolved since then. Please send along any feedback. - Mark

The United States boasts the world’s strongest biomedical industry. But the aspirations of the Republican Party to reduce the independence of government employees put US scientific research at risk. Under the policies planned by Trump allies, government funding for science could be redirected by the president to political ends. In the past, the courts would have served as a barrier to politicizing the science funding process. But this Supreme Court majority seems unlikely to stop a president determined to repurpose science funding.

The powerful US innovation ecosystem depends on government
The richness of America’s scientific research is a product of government policy. From the tax system to the intellectual property regime to grantmaking, the federal government supports research and innovation in a variety of ways.The government’s most critical role is in funding basic research. The National Institutes of Health funds more than 30,000 investigators across the country.  This funding, along with other government programs, accounts for 40% of basic biomedical research in the United States.

The success of the US approach to science has been nothing short of staggering, resulting in new treatments for cancer and cystic fibrosis, and technologies from vaccines to MRI machines. And government funding for basic science strengthens the economy. Google arose from research projects that were funded by the government. The Internet, famously, was built as a research project funded by DARPA. Talented students from all over the world come to the United States to study and do research, and they stay to start companies, pay taxes, and increase the US economic edge compared to other countries. And US biomedical research has synergistic effects with the private sector: Novartis, the Swiss pharmaceutical company, in 2002 moved its research headquarters to the United States in recognition of the rich US research environment. 

This system of basic research cannot be replaced by private investment. Only the government is in a position to invest in research with uncertain long-term payoffs. Take the “war on cancer” launched by Republican President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. Nixon’s initiative increased funding to the NIH, much of which went to basic research on cell biology and the immune system. There were few fast payoffs. But the knowledge generated by that work led to transformative treatments, like immunotherapies for cancer, decades later. And nonprofit foundations can change directions after a few years, making it difficult to build a science research enterprise with philanthropy alone. 

At the heart of government funding for basic research is an expert-driven system for awarding grants.  Rotating panels of scientists sit to review grants that fund promising projects.  These panels make their decisions on the basis of scientific merit, independent from partisan political pressure. This system is not perfect, and could be improved. But the US research grant system has been a great success, and it is currently the envy of the rest of the world. Grant-making panels have largely remained independent of partisan political pressures and have not awarded funds to advance a partisan political agenda. 

Science governance and scientific independence
The current approach of the Republican Party towards government threatens this science system. Scientific experts working for the government can make their decisions independent of political pressures because they enjoy various forms of insulation from political actors.  In particular, grant administrators have been largely immune from the threat of firing by political officials.  

The Republican Party has pledged to eliminate the independence of civil servants. Using the Schedule F mechanism to reclassify government employees, a Republican president could put the grant-making process under their thumb. They could replace program staff, appoint compliant directors, and take over review panels, re-directing grants to favored causes and cronies. 

Scientists often believe that basic science research, especially biomedical research, draws broad bipartisan support. That has been true even as recently as last year. Such support should not be surprising: both parties should support a strong US research economy, and both parties should care about creating cures for diseases like cancer through long-term investment. 

But several factors have eroded this bipartisan consensus. The Republican Party is engaged in a nationwide political attack on academia, where most cutting-edge research occurs. Helped along by anti-vaccine COVID efforts, Republicans are now more suspicious of scientific expertise. And the Republican Party is now engaged in an effort to reduce the independence of government. These are major reasons to worry about attacks on government science agencies.

What can be done now?
Protecting the US medical and scientific enterprise calls for strengthening federal policies to protect the independence of scientific grants. New laws, passed by Congress, could protect civil servants and put grant review panels beyond the reach of a President. But those laws will be meaningless if the federal courts gut them. Court reform may be necessary to prevent radical judges from imposing their own political programs in place of Congress’s.

Ultimately, the US scientific enterprise depends on public support. Now is the time to sound the alarm about threats to science funding. Scientists should help make the case for the public funding of science, the independence of our science agencies, and the importance of expertise to protect the integrity of the scientific process. The future of America’s biomedical economy is at stake.

Mark H. Histed is a neuroscience research group leader and NIH senior scientist. He holds a PhD from MIT and had held academic positions at Harvard Medical School, the University of Chicago, and the University of Maryland College Park.

Noah A. Rosenblum is an Associate Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and faculty director of the Vanderbilt Scholars Program and Katzmann Symposium. He is also a faculty affiliate of the Department of History.

Both are writing in their personal capacities and do not represent any agency or organization.