Is The Trump Administration Breaking Science?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Short Wave – "Is The Trump Administration Breaking Science?"

Introduction

In the March 11, 2025 episode of NPR’s Short Wave, hosts Emily Kwong and Regina Barber delve into the profound impact of the Trump administration on the United States' scientific community. Titled "Is The Trump Administration Breaking Science?", the episode examines the administration's actions within the first 50 days in office and their cascading effects on key federal science agencies: the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Through interviews with experts Rob Stein, Ping Huang, and Jonathan Lambert, the episode paints a comprehensive picture of the challenges faced by the scientific community under the new administration.

---

Trump Administration's Initial Actions on Science

Emily Kwong opens the episode by outlining President Donald Trump’s immediate directives affecting scientific governance:

• Communication Suspension: Just days into his presidency, Trump suspended public communications across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the overseeing body for NIH, CDC, and FDA.

• Executive Orders on DEI: The administration issued orders to terminate all work related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), environmental justice, and gender inclusivity.

• Ripple Effects: These policies led to significant changes within scientific institutions. For instance, the CDC removed thousands of pages from its website, the NSF temporarily halted grant-making processes, and the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) initiated a massive reduction of the federal workforce, resulting in thousands of layoffs.

Emily Kwong notes at [00:27]: “Trump then issued executive orders to terminate all work related to DEI, environmental justice and gender inclusivity.”

---

Stand Up for Science Movement

In response to these sweeping changes, the Stand Up for Science movement emerged as a grassroots effort to defend the integrity of scientific research and federal support. Participants like Marguerite Pacheco, a PhD student in Biomedical Engineering, voiced concerns over the administration's policies.

Marguerite Pacheco shares at [02:06]: “Everyone who would have ever interfaced with us has just like disappeared. So it's been like haunting, creepy and horrifying. I'm going to be honest.”

She emphasizes the critical role of basic research in everyday life, questioning the administration’s rationale behind cutting what she refers to as “administrative bloat.”

---

Impact on the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Jonathan Lambert provides an in-depth analysis of the NIH's struggles under the Trump administration:

• Communications Blackout: Shortly after the inauguration, the NIH faced a communications freeze, causing fear and confusion among researchers and staff. Queries from reporters were ignored, and all travel was abruptly canceled.

• Indirect Cost Cap: On February 7th, the NIH announced a contentious cap on indirect costs at 15%, which are essential for covering overhead expenses like utilities and maintenance. This cap threatened to cripple medical research funded by the NIH’s substantial $48 billion budget.

  Emily Kwong asks at [05:05]: “So the NIH was one of the federal health agencies that was hit by this communications blackout.”

  Jonathan Lambert responds at [05:31]: “Researchers said the cap would essentially cripple medical research.”

• Workforce Reductions: Approximately 1,200 of the NIH’s 18,000 employees were laid off, targeting both junior and senior scientists. Additionally, offers of $25,000 were made to employees considering leaving, although these did not extend to NIH workers specifically.

• Leadership Changes: The administration nominated Dr. J. Bhattacharya, a health economist and critic of NIH policies, as the new head of the NIH. During his confirmation hearing, Bhattacharya pledged to foster an environment open to dissenting views.

  Jonathan Lambert states at [08:14]: “Bhattacharya is expected to be easily confirmed. So everyone's waiting to see what he does and bracing for the possibility of more cuts and possibly even a major restructuring.”

---

Challenges Facing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Rob Stein outlines the tumultuous changes at the CDC:

• Website and Data Deletions: In late January, administrative orders led to the removal of sensitive information related to transgender and pregnant individuals, as well as critical public health tools for tracking diseases like HIV and STIs. A federal judge later mandated the restoration of these resources.

• Workforce Layoffs: Around 750 CDC employees were laid off around Valentine’s Day. Some of these terminations have been reversed, but uncertainty remains as the administration continues its efforts to downsize.

• Active Disease Responses: Despite internal chaos, the CDC continues to manage more than half a dozen active outbreak responses, including bird flu, mpox, viral hemorrhagic fever, dengue, and polio.

  Rob Stein explains at [09:11]: “Now some of that has gone back up. And in February, a federal judge actually ordered them to put the websites back up.”

• Leadership Transition: The upcoming confirmation hearing for Dr. Dave Weldon, Trump’s nominee for CDC director, signifies potential further shifts in agency leadership.

---

National Science Foundation (NSF) under Scrutiny

Neil Lane discusses the NSF’s experience amid the administration's policies:

• Grant Review and Funding Freezes: Similar to NIH and CDC, the NSF faced a temporary halt in grant reviews and disbursal of funds. The agency initiated a comprehensive review of its grants to align with the administration’s DEI-focused executive orders.

• Impact on Researchers: The uncertainty led to financial strains for researchers dependent on NSF funding, with some unable to cover living expenses or continue their projects.

  Neil Lane remarks at [13:18]: “Now, some people argue that NSF shouldn't be considering diversity and funding its science, but only the science.”

• Historical Context: According to Lane, the NSF’s current approach is unprecedented, as previous administrations have not dictated specific grant priorities based on social factors.

  Neil Lane states at [14:24]: “With the idea of broadening the sort of STEM workforce.”

• Ongoing Uncertainty: While some grant processes have resumed, the DEI review remains, and the administration continues to propose significant budget cuts, threatening the NSF’s capacity to fund future research.

---

Future Implications for U.S. Science

The episode culminates with the panelists reflecting on the long-term consequences of the administration's policies:

• Erosion of Trust and Morale: The disruption has fostered mistrust among scientists regarding the integrity of federal data and funding. Staff morale within agencies like the CDC remains low, with fears of job insecurity pervasive.

  Rob Stein shares at [16:15]: “People we've spoken with are worried that these cost-cutting measures are making things less efficient in the short term and they're undermining these agencies and their ability to fulfill their missions to improve people's health in the long run.”

• Decline in Scientific Pursuit: Researchers express concerns that potential and current scientists may be dissuaded from pursuing careers in STEM fields due to the unstable funding landscape and administrative uncertainty.

  Neil Lane comments at [16:32]: “Prospective scientists are just going to look at the state of science now and decide they want to do something different, like not go into science at all.”

• Global Standing at Risk: With the U.S. potentially reducing its investment and leadership in scientific research, there is apprehension about the country's ability to maintain its position as a global scientific leader.

  Jonathan Lambert emphasizes at [16:56]: “Science is an international enterprise and the US is a leader internationally when it comes to scientific research. So the real concern is where is this going to go and is this us going to be giving up that position in the world?”

---

Conclusion

The episode of Short Wave provides a sobering exploration of the Trump administration’s impact on U.S. science, highlighting immediate disruptions and long-term threats to research integrity, funding stability, and the nation’s scientific workforce. Through expert insights and firsthand accounts, it underscores the fragile nature of scientific progress under political upheaval and the critical need for robust support to sustain scientific endeavors.

---

Notable Quotes

• Marguerite Pacheco at [02:28]: “We know how to fix that broken arm because of basic research, science, because of science that happens at universities.”

• Jonathan Lambert at [08:14]: “Bhattacharya is expected to be easily confirmed. So everyone's waiting to see what he does and bracing for the possibility of more cuts and possibly even a major restructuring.”

• Rob Stein at [16:15]: “People we've spoken with are worried that these cost-cutting measures are making things less efficient in the short term and they're undermining these agencies and their ability to fulfill their missions to improve people's health in the long run.”

---

Attributions

• Hosts and Experts:

  • Emily Kwong – Host
  • Rob Stein – Covering NIH
  • Ping Huang – Covering CDC
  • Jonathan Lambert – Covering NSF
  • Neil Lane – Former NSF Director

• Guests:

  • Marguerite Pacheco – PhD Student in Biomedical Engineering

---

This detailed summary captures the essence of the episode, providing listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the critical issues discussed regarding the Trump administration's influence on science in the United States.

Transcript

[Amazon One Medical]

This message comes from Amazon One Medical. When you're sick and your doctor can't see you for three weeks, well, it might as well be three years. Amazon One Medical has 24. 7 virtual care. They know that colds can't wait. Health care just got less painful. Amazon One Medical.

[Emily Kwong]

You're listening to Short Wave from NPR from almost the moment President Donald Trump took office.

[Rob Stein]

So help me go Congratulations, Mr. Kelly.

[Emily Kwong]

He has made his plan for science and the federal funding of science known. Just a few days after the inauguration, Trump suspended public communications across the Department of Health and Human Services, or hhs. They oversee the National Institutes for Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration. Trump then issued executive orders to terminate all work related to dei, environmental justice and gender inclusivity. And these effects rippled through scientific institutions. The CDC purged thousands of pages from its website. The National Science foundation froze grant making for a while to comply with the orders. And Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, started to shrink the federal workforce, firing thousands of workers from all corners of the government. All of this has put science on the defensive.

[Ping Huang]

Nih, nih, nih.

[Emily Kwong]

The Stand up for Science movement organized to fight back.

[Amazon One Medical]

My sign says powered by science, strengthened by diversity.

[Marguerite Pacheco]

My sign says diseases don't have party lines. And it also says science is for everyone.

[Emily Kwong]

Mark Belle Isle and Nellie Simmons came out to the D.C. march one of 32 rallies around the country, from the Lincoln memorial in Washington, D.C. to Cornell University's rally in late February. Cornell is where Marguerite Pacheco spoke with our colleague aurora Berry at WSKG. Marguerite is a PhD student in Biomedical engineering and says these days writing to grant providers has been like writing to ghosts.

[Marguerite Pacheco]

Everyone who would have ever interfaced with us has just like disappeared. So it's been like haunting, creepy and horrifying. I'm going to be honest.

[Emily Kwong]

And the Trump administration's stated goal in all of this is to cut what they claim is administrative bloat, the kinds of taxpayer dollars that fund research overhead costs. But Marguerite wonders what will happen if basic research in the US Starts to.

[Marguerite Pacheco]

Falter when you take your kid to a hospital with a broken arm. We know how to fix that broken arm because of basic research, science, because of science that happens at universities. Every single thing that you have in your life that has been, like, produced and put out into the world at some point that depended a little bit on public research dollars helping fund these institutions and the work that we do.

[Emily Kwong]

The thing about science, and I've heard this over and over again from people in the field is that science is fragile. Research that can take a lifetime to prop up can be dismantled in a matter of days. So today, with three of my colleagues on NPR Science Desk, we're going to Explore the first 50 days of science under the current Trump administration by focusing on three US Agencies, the nih, the cdc, and the National Science Foundation. I'm Emily Kwong, and this is Short Wave from npr.

[Ping Huang]

This message comes from NPR sponsor Amazon prime video presenting Common Ground, a film about the power of agriculture to reshape the planet through sustainable farming. Featuring Jason Momoa, Laura Dern, Donald Glover, Rosario Dawson and Ian Somerhalder. Common Ground profiles a movement of farmers using regenerative models of agriculture that could balance the climate such save people's health and stabilize America's economy. Now streaming only on prime support for npr. And the following message come from Indeed. Just realizing your business needed to hire someone yesterday, speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. Claim your $75 sponsored job credit now at Indeed.com shortwave terms and conditions apply. This message comes from Charles Schwab. When it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices like full service, wealth management and advice when you need it. You can also invest on your own and trade on thinkorswim. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[Emily Kwong]

All right, so we're going to get into some updates from the science world from the first 50 days of the Trump administration. And I've got here my colleagues, Rob Stein, who's been covering the nih, Ping Huang, who's been covering the cdc, and Jonathan Lambert, who's been covering the National Science Foundation. Hey, everyone.

[Rob Stein]

Hey, Emily.

[Jonathan Lambert]

Hi there.

[Emily Kwong]

Hi. 50 days later, here we are. We're going to start, Rob, with the nih, the National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research all over the U.S. what has been going on there?

[Jonathan Lambert]

So the NIH was one of the federal health agencies that was hit by this communications blackout. You know, queries from reporters were met with silence. All travel was suddenly canceled. So a general sense of fear, confusion and anxiety settled over the labs and offices and clin on the sprawling NIH campus just outside Washington. And, you know, that was just the beginning.

[Emily Kwong]

Okay, so this was just days after the inauguration. What happened next?

[Jonathan Lambert]

Well, then a real shocker hit late on a Friday. It was February 7th. The NIH announced that the agency was capping what the NIH pays universities, medical schools, research hospitals and other institutions for so called indirect costs at 15%.

[Emily Kwong]

And what are indirect costs?

[Jonathan Lambert]

Yeah, these are essentially the overhead Costs of conducting medical studies to search for new cures for everything from cancer and heart disease to addiction and Alzheimer's. You know, think about electricity to keep the lights on, janitors to clean buildings and take out the trash. Researchers said the cap would essentially cripple medical research. Don't forget, with a budget of more than $48 billion, the NIH is the world's largest public funder of biomedical research. Yeah, so this was seen as an almost existential threat to the whole US Biomedical research enterprise.

[Emily Kwong]

Did the administration explain why?

[Jonathan Lambert]

Yes. They said the 15% was more in line with what other funders pay, like, you know, private foundations, and argued that institutions could cover more of these costs themselves by eliminating bloat in their budgets and by dipping into their endowments, especially big, wealthy schools like Harvard and Yale. Though I should note a federal judge in Boston has blocked the 15% cap on indirect costs from going into effect. So that came as a huge relief to researchers, as you might imagine.

[Emily Kwong]

And the Trump administration announced then a wave of job terminations across the federal government decided through DOGE as part of its aggressive effort to downsize bureaucracy. Rob, how many workers did the NIH lose in particular?

[Jonathan Lambert]

Yeah, so we estimate that the NIH lost about 1200 of the agency's 18,000 employees. And since the layoffs were aimed at probationary employees, they were pretty much random hitting, you know, relatively junior scientists, but also senior investigators who had recently taken new jobs or been promoted. Plus some top leaders started being forced out. And most recently, HHS has started offering $25,000 to employees of that agency. And that's. NIH isn't part of HHS if they leave. And there are also rumblings of some senior scientist contracts not being renewed.

[Emily Kwong]

Got it. Yeah. And where do things stand at the NIH when it comes to grants?

[Jonathan Lambert]

So the NIH had been blocked from reviewing new grants, but that's been partially lifted. So that whole process of reviewing grant applications has restarted to some degr. At the same time, though, a lot of existing grants have been terminated to comply with the President's executive orders, barring anything related to DEI and the LGBTQ community.

[Emily Kwong]

And on top of all of that, we have a new potential head of the NIH. Tell me about this person.

[Jonathan Lambert]

Right. Trump picked Dr. J. Bhattacharya from Stanford to take over the agency. He's a very well respected health economist with a strong record of, you know, high quality research. But he has also been a vocal critic of the nih, Most notably during the pandemic, he argued against Measures like lockdowns. During his confirmation hearing last week, he promised to create a more open environment at the NIH for what he called dissenting views. And bhattatatoria is expected to be easily confirmed. So everyone's waiting to see what he does and bracing for the possibility of more cuts and possibly even a major restructuring. The question is, how radical will those reforms be and how will they be done?

[Emily Kwong]

Okay, so that is the nih. Let's move on to the cdc. Ping Huang, you are covering the agency responsible for protecting the nation's health, including combating infectious disease. What's going on with the cdc?

[Rob Stein]

Yeah, so a lot of similarities with what you just heard about nih. So like the nih, the CDC was hit by a communications freeze. People who had grants with CDC or had calls with them for ongoing outbreaks couldn't speak with anyone there for a few weeks. Also, as a result of Trump's executive orders, there was this weekend at the end of January where webpages and data sets started disappearing from the CDC website. You know, this was when references to trans people and pregnant people were taken down, along with some tools that policymakers used to track HIV and STIs and adolescent health. Now some of that has gone back up. And in February, a federal judge actually ordered them to put the websites back up.

[Emily Kwong]

There's really a kind of a back and forth between the executive and the judiciary branches at the federal level when it comes to science right now.

[Rob Stein]

Absolutely. And then also in terms of, of the workforce, like at the other health agencies, there was a firing at CDC. Around 750 people were let go around Valentine's Day, although some have actually been asked to come back. And all of this has just been really distracting from the agency's mission, which is to keep the nation safe. Yeah.

[Emily Kwong]

What are we dealing with when it comes to disease?

[Rob Stein]

So right now there are more than half a dozen active outbreak responses at CDC right now. So those cover things like bird flu, mpox, there's East Africa, Africa, viral hemorrhagic fever, also tropical insect borne diseases, dengue and oropouche. And there's also one for measles in Texas and now New Mexico, and an ongoing polio response. And those are just the formal responses. It doesn't include the CDC's regular other work on things like worker health or preventing accidents or chronic diseases or dealing with the health effects of environmental toxins, for instance.

[Emily Kwong]

The CDC does a lot. It does a lot. But you mentioned earlier that some folks have been brought back some of these Firings have been reversed. What's going on there?

[Rob Stein]

There were two programs in particular that got a lot of attention for being wiped out. That was the Laboratory Leadership Service, which is this partner fellowship to the Epidemic Intelligence Service, which is well known. It's the EIS program. And then also the Public Health Associate Program, which puts recent graduates in state and local health departments. Those left some gaps in the public health system that our colleague Will Stone and I have been reporting on. Now, the members of these two fellowships in particular have been asked to return. They got these emails last week. Your termination has been rescinded. You can come back and quote, we apologize for any disruption that this may have caused. And these fellowships make up a sizable number of the 180 or so people that have been asked to return. But still, you know, these rescindments offered no protections against future reductions in force which are expected to be coming to the agency.

[Emily Kwong]

Oh, okay, so it's like such a zigzag. Where does that leave the CDC now this week?

[Rob Stein]

Yeah. Emily, all of this chaos and confusion at the agency is having some lingering effects. There are scientists and researchers that have this mistrust of the data on the CDC website now. They're concerned that it's corrupted or that.

[Emily Kwong]

The one that the data that was re uploaded.

[Rob Stein]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So they're worried that it won't be collected in the same way going forward or that there might be interruptions to it. They're not sure that they can rely on it. The agency is also, even though the communications freeze has officially lifted, it's not back to super normal communication. And staff morale is really awful. I mean, some teams have lost really critical people and nobody there feels like their job is safe. So this week there's the confirmation hearing for Dr. Dave Weldon, who is Trump's pick for the CDC. It's the first time that a CDC director needs to be confirmed by the Senate and it could soon have a new leader.

[Emily Kwong]

All right, so we have a new head of the cdc, a new head of the nih, which is pretty standard for when there's a new presidency, a new administration. But let's talk about the nsf. John, you have been covering the National Science foundation, which dispenses federal funding for basic research. These are like fundamental questions across all areas of science. What has it been like over at the nsf?

[Neil Lane]

Yeah, similar to what Ping and Rob recounted. It's been a roller coaster. It started the week after inauguration when NSF canceled its grant reviews and then froze funding for grants that had already been awarded. Now, they did all this because they said that they needed time to review how their grantmaking process aligned with Trump's executive orders targeting dei. So I talked to some researchers with these specific fellowships where their salaries get directly paid by nsf and they couldn't pay for their rent, much less their own research. So funds started flowing again about a week later. But scientists are still really on edge, and that's because of this big review that NSF is doing of all their grants. They're screening all existing grants for basically, like, DEI words, things like diversity or underrepresented. Those words could appear on virtually all NSF grants, because in the 90s, Congress mandated that NSF needs to consider how its grants will boost the participation of women in underrepresented groups in science.

[Emily Kwong]

Oh, interesting. Okay.

[Neil Lane]

Yeah. With the idea of broadening the sort of STEM workforce.

[Emily Kwong]

Yeah. This really would be such a different way of doing science from how it's been done for many decades now in the U.S. yeah.

[Neil Lane]

And overall, this is just a huge departure from how science has been funded in the past. Like, administrations do get to set priorities, but they don't usually go in and sort of say specific kinds of grants should or shouldn't get funded. And that appears to be what's happening now.

[Emily Kwong]

Okay.

[Neil Lane]

Now, some people argue that NSF shouldn't be considering diversity and funding its science, but only the science. But I talked to Neil Lane, who was the director of NSF from 1993 to 1998, and he said it's totally unprecedented.

[Rob Stein]

Certainly during my time, there's never anything like this.

[Jonathan Lambert]

I think a killing science. Wow.

[Emily Kwong]

Okay. 50 days hence, where do things stand now with the NSF?

[Neil Lane]

So, existing grants are getting paid out, but the DEI review of those grants is ongoing, and it's unclear what will happen to grants that get flagged. NSF is also still awarding some new grants, but at significantly lower rates in certain areas, especially those targeting STEM education.

[Emily Kwong]

Yeah.

[Neil Lane]

And in response to a court order calling the firings of probationary employees illegal, NSF rehired 5% of their workforce.

[Emily Kwong]

Oh.

[Neil Lane]

Still, NSF told staff to expect cuts of about 25 to 50%. And President Trump's proposed budget may still slash the agency's budget by billions. So there's just lots and lots and lots of uncertainty.

[Emily Kwong]

Yeah, uncertainty really does seem to be the status of science in the US at least when it comes to federal funding. But maybe just period. So, all three of you, I want to ask, what does this mean for the future of science in the US and particularly for current students or people who are hoping to go into scientific fields.

[Rob Stein]

I mean, I can jump in here, Emily. So based on how it's gone so far, people we've spoken with are worried that these cost cutting measures are making things less efficient in the short term and they're undermining these agencies and their ability to fulfill their missions to and improve people's health in the long run.

[Neil Lane]

Yeah, I've talked to a lot of researchers who are worried that prospective scientists are just going to look at the state of science now and decide they want to do something different, like not.

[Emily Kwong]

Go into science at all.

[Neil Lane]

Like not go into science at all. And some universities are already turning away prospective grad students because they aren't sure if they're going to have money to fund them. And overall, this could really just ultimately shrink American science and lead to fewer discoveries.

[Jonathan Lambert]

And you know, science is an international enterprise and the US Is a leader internationally when it comes to scientific research. So the real concern is where is this going to go and is this us going to be giving up that position in the world?

[Emily Kwong]

That's Rob Stein, Ping Huang and Jonathan Lambert. Thank you so much for joining me and good luck in continuing to report on this.

[Rob Stein]

You're welcome, Emily. It's great to be here.

[Neil Lane]

Good to be here.

[Jonathan Lambert]

Thanks, Emily.

[Emily Kwong]

This episode was produced by Rachel Carlson. It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez and Gisele Grayson and fact checked by Tyler Jones. The audio engineer was Robert Rodriguez. Special thanks to Aurora Berry and Rachel Waltholtz. Beth Donovan is our Senior director and Colin Campbell is our senior Vice President of Podcasting Strategy. I'm Emily Kwong. Thank you for listening to Shortwave, the science podcast from N.

[Jonathan Lambert]

Foreign.

[Ping Huang]

This message comes from Charles Schwab. When it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices like full service, wealth management and advice when you need it. You can also invest on your own and trade on thinkorswim. Visit schwab.com to learn more. This message comes from Thrive Market the food industry is a multi billion dollar industry. But not everything on the shelf is made with your health in mind. At Thrive Market, they go beyond the standards, curating the highest quality products for you and your family while focusing on organic first and restricting more than 1000 harmful ingredients all shipped at your door. Shop at a grocery store that actually cares for your [e-mail] podcast for 30% off your first order plus a $60 free gift. This message comes from Warby Parker. What makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost, like free adjustments for life. Find your [e-mail] or visit one of their hundreds of stores around the country.