\n<\/p>\n
Ask just about any federally funded researcher to describe 2025, and they use words like chaotic, demoralizing, confusing, destabilizing and transformational.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s been a very destabilizing year [that\u2019s made] people question the nation\u2019s commitment to research,\u201d Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges, told Inside Higher Ed<\/em>.<\/p>\n She expects 2026 to be a year of rebuilding and standard setting.<\/p>\n Speaking of the National Institutes of Health, which calls itself the world\u2019s largest public biomedical research funder, Pierce said the research community is expecting more major regulation and written policy changes in 2026, which will shed more light on how grants will be funded, how much the federal government will invest in the research enterprise and what priorities will emerge from this administration.<\/p>\n If the administration\u2019s attacks on federally funded research in 2025 are any indication, the federal government of 2026 will likely be just as willing to advance its conservative ideological agenda by controlling universities through the nation\u2019s research enterprise. And while the administration may not let up in the new year, courts stymied some of its most sweeping changes in 2025 and may continue to be an obstacle in the new year.<\/p>\n Soon after President Donald Trump started his second term in January, the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Education and numerous other federal agencies that collectively send billions in research dollars to universities, began freezing and terminating hundreds of grants. Many of the targeted grants\u2014including projects focused on vaccines, climate change, and health and education disparities among women, LGBTQ+ and minority communities\u2014were caught in the crossfire of Trump\u2019s war against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and so-called woke gender ideology.<\/p>\n Not only would the terminations lead to the loss of jobs, staff and income, a lawsuit filed by a group of NIH-funded researchers in April predicted that \u201cscientific advancement will be delayed, treatments will go undiscovered, human health will be compromised, and lives will be lost.\u201d<\/p>\n The true damage comes from the betrayal, the sense of uncertainty and the loss of trust researchers have\u2014or had\u2014vis-\u00e0-vis with the federal government. That\u2019s really hard to quantify.\u201d<\/p>\n Scott Delaney, cofounder of Grant Witness<\/p>\n Terminated federal grants encompassed a wide range of research projects. Some of the casualties included funding to study the erosion of democracy, the effectiveness of work study, dementia, COVID-19, cancer and misinformation. Others supported teacher-training programs and initiatives designed to attract more underrepresented students into STEM fields.<\/p>\n \u201cThe premise of this award is incompatible with agency priorities,\u201d read a letter the NIH sent to numerous researchers back in March, terminating their active grants. \u201c[R]esearch programs based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.\u201d<\/p>\n But it didn\u2019t stop there.<\/p>\n The Trump administration also temporarily froze billions more dollars in federal research grants at a handful of the nation\u2019s wealthiest, most selective institutions, including Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of California at Los Angeles, for allegedly failing to address antisemitism on campus and ignoring the Supreme Court\u2019s ban on affirmative action, among other allegations. (Most of the universities got their money back after cutting deals with the administration or via court orders.)<\/p>\n Faculty in the University of California system successfully fought the administration\u2019s funding cuts, winning court orders to restore the money.<\/p>\n Justin Sullivan\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/p>\n And because the NIH, NSF, ED and several other federal agencies also laid off thousands of workers, researchers with questions had far fewer resources to help them navigate changes to application and award processes.<\/p>\n By some estimates, the government disrupted upward of $17\u00a0billion in NIH grants alone this year, according to Scott Delaney, a former lawyer and Harvard University epidemiologist who the university laid off as a result of grant terminations.<\/p>\n Earlier this year, he cofounded Grant Witness, a website that has been tracking grant cancellations at the NIH, NSF and the Environmental Protection Agency. While both the NIH and NSF have since restored thousands of grants, Delaney said those and other restorations won\u2019t be enough to repair the now-fractured relationship between faculty and federal funding agencies.<\/p>\n \u201cThe true damage comes from the betrayal, the sense of uncertainty and the loss of trust researchers have\u2014or had\u2014vis-\u00e0-vis with the federal government. That\u2019s really hard to quantify,\u201d he told Inside Higher Ed<\/em> this month. \u201cIn the years ahead, there will be folks who don\u2019t want to plan long-term research projects because they don\u2019t know if their funds are going to get summarily yanked out from underneath them; folks who don\u2019t want to continue their careers in academic research or train in academic research; trainees who would have had training grant support who don\u2019t now and go do something else. And some researchers will just leave the country.\u201d<\/p>\n In addition, some of the Trump administration\u2019s research funding proposals have stoked worry this year about the long-term sustainability of the nation\u2019s academic research enterprise.<\/p>\n Numerous agencies\u2014including NIH, NSF and Department of Energy\u2014have attempted to cut university reimbursement rates for indirect research costs. Higher education and science advocates characterized such policies as \u201cshortsighted and dangerous,\u201d and said it would hamper university budgets, hurt the economy and stymie scientific progress. Although federal courts have since blocked the rate caps, the mere anticipation of such policy changes led some universities\u2014including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Northwestern University\u2014to freeze hiring and, in some cases, graduate admissions.<\/p>\n But by September, the NIH said it was on track to spend its full $47\u00a0billion budget by the end of the fiscal year that month.<\/p>\n However, the NIH awarded 3,500 fewer competitive grants this year with the biggest declines at the Institutes of minority health, nursing, human genome, alcohol abuse and alcoholism and mental health, according to The New York Times<\/em>. Those changes are part of the White House\u2019s plan to streamline scientific funding by eliminating wasteful spending and cutting \u201cwoke programs\u201d that \u201cpoison the minds of Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n The cuts to federal agencies and research spurred protests in the spring.<\/p>\n As 2025 fades into 2026, the federal research funding picture isn\u2019t looking as bleak\u2014at least not on the surface.<\/p>\n A flurry of litigation from universities, individual researchers, trade associations and labor unions prompted several federal agencies to reinstate some research grants.<\/p>\n All things considered, 2025 \u201ccould have been worse, but it was still awful,\u201d Delaney said, noting that there are still thousands of grants in limbo at the NSF, DOE and numerous other agencies beyond the NIH.<\/p>\n \u201cSo many people fought so hard\u2014some of them sacrificed their jobs inside these federal agencies\u2014and they succeeded in many ways. To tell a story that doesn\u2019t include both their sacrifice and their success discredits what was a Herculean and heroic effort for scientists, many who have never spoken up in a political way before this year,\u201d he added. \u201cBut it\u2019s also important to emphasize that this fight isn\u2019t over, and we need to keep fighting. It can get worse.\u201d<\/p>\n Katie Edwards, a social work professor at the University of Michigan, is one of the researchers who sued the NIH. In March, the agency canceled six grants she was using to research mental health and violence prevention among marginalized young people, including Indigenous and LGBTQ+ youth. Valued at $10\u00a0million, the grants supported roughly 50 staff, community collaborators and trainees and put them all at risk of losing their jobs.<\/p>\n \u201cFor many trainees\u2014especially those who are LGBTQ+ or people of color\u2014the message they internalized was painful: that research on their communities is \u2018ideological\u2019 or expendable,\u201d Edwards wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed<\/em>. \u201cThe emotional toll of fighting for and protecting staff, reassuring community partners, and trying to navigate a constantly shifting federal landscape has been immense.\u201d<\/p>\n April:<\/strong> A group of NIH researchers, a public health advocacy organization and a union representing more than 120,000 higher education workers sued the NIH for terminating more than $2.4\u00a0billion in grants.<\/p>\n June:<\/strong> A federal judge ordered the agency to reinstate the grants immediately and said the government\u2019s actions amounted to a policy of \u201cracial discrimination\u201d guided by \u201chomogeneity, inequity and exclusion.\u201d<\/p>\n August:<\/strong> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5 to 4 that any legal challenges to the grant terminations should be litigated in the Court of Federal Claims, not the federal district court system they\u2019ve been moving through for months.<\/p>\n Edwards<\/p>\n University of Michigan<\/p>\n Although her grants have since been reinstated\u2014albeit some with reduced dollar amounts, administrative delays and anti-DEI language in the notice of award\u2014and her team has resumed their work, this year has forever changed her perspective on research.<\/p>\n \u201cThis year made clear that science is not insulated from politics\u2014and that researchers must be prepared to defend not only their projects, but the people those projects exist to serve,\u201d Edwards said. \u201cFederally funded research with marginalized communities requires constant vigilance, strong partnerships, and collective resistance. We cannot simply adjust our science to political winds when real communities rely on this work.\u201d<\/p>\n But not every researcher who appealed a grant termination got their money back.<\/p>\n In March, the Education Department informed Judith Scott-Clayton, a professor of economics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, that it was cancelling her six-year grant to examine the impact of receiving federal work-study funding on enrollment and persistence among low-income students four and a half years into the grant.<\/p>\n Teachers College appealed the decision in April, but the government rejected it in September, stating that Education Department grants were specifically excluded from Columbia University\u2019s settlement with the Trump administration. Support from a private foundation allowed Scott-Clayton and her team to resume their research this November, but she told Inside Higher Ed<\/em> that the disruptions to research have been \u201cextremely unsettling and demoralizing.\u201d<\/p>\n And she\u2019s not certain that 2026 will be any better.<\/p>\n \u201cEven though I believe in the value of what I do, self-doubt can flare up when an authority as significant as the federal government formally declares your work to be a waste of resources,\u201d she said. \u201cI am not sure what the future of our field looks like if our federal government no longer values research evidence. And I am not sure what our society looks like if the federal government can make decisions so arbitrarily without any consequences or constraints.\u201d<\/p>\n This year is ending with unresolved questions about what the Trump administration\u2019s research policies will ultimately be, and how much the federal government will fund research. Pierce at the Association of American Medical Colleges said she expects next year will provide answers.<\/p>\n Joanne Padr\u00f3n Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), said \u201cI think the [the Energy Department\u2019s] Genesis mission and the prioritization of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies is going to be a key driver in\u2014I guess you could say\u2014filling in the cracks of the foundation of the research enterprise that has been kind of hit by this earthquake in the past year.\u201d<\/p>\n The National Institutes of Health has cut staff and is eyeing other changes to how it funds research.<\/p>\n Wesley Lapointe\/The Washington Post via Getty Images<\/p>\n The continuing resolution that ended the historically long federal government shutdown in November expires Jan. 30, and Congress is leaving town for the holidays without passing funding bills for some major science funding agencies, including the NIH, NSF and Energy.<\/p>\n Trump proposed slashing about $5.2\u00a0billion from the NSF. But House appropriators have suggested cutting $2.1\u00a0billion, while senators only put forth axing $60\u00a0million, according to an appropriations debate tracker from the AAAS. And while the president proposed cutting nearly 40\u00a0percent from the NIH\u2014$18.1\u00a0billion\u2014the House and Senate have instead suggested increasing its funding by roughly $1\u00a0billion, the tracker shows. That pushback from Congress is promising, advocates say.<\/p>\n And colleges and universities are still waiting for federal research funding agencies to set indirect cost reimbursement caps, after litigation blocked their plans to set the limit at 15\u00a0percent. The forthcoming OMB guidance setting those caps is also supposed to help agencies implement Trump\u2019s controversial August executive order directing \u201csenior appointees\u201d to take charge of awarding, denying, reviewing and terminating new and already awarded grants. Among other changes, that order also said grants can\u2019t \u201cpromote\u201d racial preferences or \u201cthe notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic,\u201d and that they \u201cshould be given to a broad range of recipients rather than to a select group of repeat players.\u201d<\/p>\n Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya took over the National Institutes of Health and has pledged to support what the administration calls \u201cgold standard science.\u201d He\u2019s become a vocal supporter of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, which focuses more on chronic diseases.<\/p>\n Jim Watson\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/p>\n Further, the NIH is eyeing ways to reduce how much of its grant dollars researchers can use to pay scientific journals to publish their work. The proposed options ranged from limiting how much could be spent per publication or capping the percentage of a grant that can go toward publishing fees overall, to no longer funding publication costs whatsoever. The NIH said in the summer that it planned to make whatever policy it chose effective early next year, but it only recently released the public comments, and an agency spokesperson said he couldn\u2019t provide a definitive implementation timeline.<\/p>\n Just this week, Science <\/em>published a memo showing that NSF is scaling back its reviews of grant proposals, citing its \u201csignificantly reduced\u201d workforce and a need to expedite approvals and denials to address a \u201csignificant backlog of unreviewed proposals and canceled review panels\u201d from the government shutdown. The memo also said NSF program officers are \u201cexpected to maximize their use of available automated merit review tools, especially tools that identify proposals that should be returned without review.\u201d<\/p>\n And the NIH ordered staff last Friday to start using a \u201ccomputational text analysis tool\u201d to scan current and new grants for words and phrases that may mean they\u2019re misaligned with NIH priorities. Staff were told to look out for terms such as \u201chealth equity\u201d and \u201cstructural racism.\u201d How this and the NSF policy changes will work in practice remains to be seen.<\/p>\n The educational improvement research field also awaits word on the future of the congressionally required Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which the administration gutted early this year amid its ongoing push to dismantle the larger Education Department. IES is the federal government\u2019s central education data collection and research funding agency. Education secretary Linda McMahon hired a special adviser to \u201cre-envision\u201d it, but the plan hasn\u2019t been released.<\/p>\n Overall, Pierce said 2026 \u201cwill continue to be a challenging year, especially for those researchers, institutions and trainees that have seen their grants terminated.\u201d But she noted medical research is marked by passion for improving the nation\u2019s health.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s an incredibly resilient field,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ask just about any federally funded researcher to describe 2025, and they use words like chaotic, demoralizing, confusing, destabilizing and transformational. \u201cIt\u2019s been a very destabilizing year [that\u2019s made] people question the nation\u2019s commitment to research,\u201d Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges, told Inside Higher Ed. She<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":38445,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[505,1442,3141,264],"class_list":{"0":"post-38444","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-education","8":"tag-ahead","9":"tag-changed","10":"tag-research","11":"tag-whats"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38444","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=38444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38444\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/38445"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=38444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=38444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=38444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\u2018Not Insulated From Politics\u2019<\/h2>\n
Fighting for Public Health Research<\/h4>\n
New Year, Old Concerns<\/h2>\n