How the first 30 days went for Trump, and what is to come
The case against blocking grants from the National Institute of Health for scientific research (NIH) during Trump’s term of office: a comment by Super
The agency has to post its meeting plans on the Federal Register 15 days in advance of the grant-review sessions. According to e-mail correspondence obtained by Nature, Trump’s team has barred theNIH from making certain posts. The agency has not posted a notice on the Federal Register since Trump took office, while more than 150 notices were posted by the agency during the same period.
The review panels are suspended because of the Trump administration’s actions. Scientists are faced with difficult decisions regarding their research programmes as a result of the funding lapse caused by this.
Some legal scholars say that this ‘back-door’ approach to freezing funding is illegal. That’s because the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president or his team, the power to appropriate funds, says David Super, an administrative-law specialist at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington DC. He says blocking advisory-committee meetings that are legally required to make payments isn’t different from simply refusing to sign contracts or issue cheques.
First day of Donald Trump’s presidency: science priorities and the impact of a ban on gender-inclusive climate change laws in the United States
The applications are looked at by two separate panels to get approval. The first is a study section, which is a group of independent scientists who convene to score applications. A funding decision can be made at the meeting of the advisory council, a separate group of external and internal scientists who check applications before they are considered for funding.
According to the e-mail, the Trump administration will, in future, require that these notices be posted at least 35 days before grant-review meetings, instead of the standard 15 in effect previously. This means that, even if these notices were allowed again from today, the earliest date on which a new grant-review meeting could be scheduled is 28 March.
A small number of study sections have convened since Trump took office, but only because a Federal Register notice was posted to schedule them before his inauguration. The cancellation of these meetings has snowballed, and there is now an enormous back up of applications.
Peer review may not be possible in time for the second council meeting date as the amount of support for the project has increased, according to a scientific review officer who is not authorized to speak to the press.
Although US courts have been involved in some cases, mainly blocking Trump’s attempt to cut funding for science, the Republicans in the US Congress have largely stayed in line with their agenda for Trump 2.0. This first month shows a realignment of priorities that could affect science and society for decades to come.
The United States pulling out of the Paris agreement to reduce global climate emissions was one of the orders that had been anticipated. The scientific community was surprised and affected by others.
One order erroneously attempted to define only two biological sexes, male and female, and banned federal actions “that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology”. The CDC took down their data sets and pulled back manuscript submissions from scientific journals in order to purge the terms ‘gender’ and ‘trans gender’.
The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DeI) programs were banned by another executive order. Any federal employee who did not report colleagues defying the DEI orders would face “adverse consequences”, according to an e-mail sent to government workers. Environmental-justice efforts were terminated by agencies due to their intent to protect low income communities that are vulnerable to pollution. The DEI mentions were scrubbed from some websites. In one of Trump’s orders, he called for the investigation of foundations, non-profit organizations and other private entities not in compliance.
A scientist who asked not to be identified says that the environment in which research teams work is bad for investigators and their teams. “Everything is on you to manage your grants and your team,” they say, adding that “there’s a lot of fear of people not wanting to say or do the wrong thing” and therefore lose financial support for their work. “It’s completely chaotic; I’m losing sleep.”
As his partnership with Musk flourished, Trump came up with unprecedented directives. The US Agency for International Development, which funds global disease research, is one of the agencies that the pair are working together to dismantle.
The administration is firing federal employees, including those that use research in key areas, such as protecting public health, the environment, and people’s safety, because they rely on research. It is making cuts to the public sector. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institute of Health were all affected. 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 and public libraries are affected as well.
How should we respond to the global enterprise of education, health, science and engineering? 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.
There are differences in the opinions of researchers. Discussion and further study are the best ways to reach a shared understanding. It isn’t a solution to shut down scholarship.
The US Agency for International Development and Climate Change: Where do we Stand? The challenges of Donald Trump’s decision to leave the U.S.
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.
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.
A total of US $11 billion in international climate change projects had their federal funding axed by Trump. 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.
The decision to withdraw from long-standing commitments will have dire 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 World Health Organization’s core budget is one-fifth of it, and according to Trump’s intentions, he will leave the organization. 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.
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.
Scott’s grant explores how the brain of the zebrafish (Danio rerio) processes visual and audible information. The policy of funding researchers overseas has a philosophy of expanding knowledge and advance medical research, according to him. “The uncertainty that arises for international researchers is whether the NIH will consider continuing to send money overseas.”
On its website, the NIH lists 811 grants to international teams in more than 60 countries, together worth more than $340 million. South Africa, Canada and the United Kingdom have the most awards. Grant sizes range from a few thousand dollars to $7 million.
