Podcast Summary: Breaking Down the Massive Cuts to Science Funding

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Daily
• Host/Author: The New York Times
• Episode: Breaking Down the Massive Cuts to Science Funding
• Release Date: June 26, 2025

1. Introduction

In the June 26, 2025 episode of The Daily, hosted by Natalie Kitroweff, the focus centers on the significant reductions in scientific research funding orchestrated by the Trump administration. Programmatically deemed "too woke," these cuts have sparked widespread concern within the scientific community. Natalie introduces her colleague, Emily Anthis, to delve deeper into the specifics of these budgetary slashes, their targets, and the broader implications for the scientific landscape.

2. Background: Trump Administration’s Cuts to Federal Science Funding

From the outset of his tenure, President Trump initiated a series of substantial budget cuts across various federal agencies, with scientific research at the forefront. Public statements and press releases indicated a strategic downsizing of research areas deemed overly progressive or not aligned with the administration's scientific agenda. According to Emily Anthis:

"From the very beginning of the Trump administration, we were hearing quite clearly and loudly that the administration was cutting research. They've been putting out, essentially, press releases saying we're cutting research, research on transgender health, we're cutting grants to Harvard."
— Emily Anthis [00:58]

These cuts were not only publicly announced but also executed behind the scenes, leading to uncertainty and anxiety among researchers awaiting grant renewals and new funding cycles.

3. Investigative Approach: Unveiling the Extent of the Cuts

Emily Anthis and her team embarked on a comprehensive investigation to quantify and qualify the administration's spending reductions. Their methodology involved:

• Data Analysis: Collaborating with the NYT's data team to sift through the NIH's publicly available grant databases, identifying anomalies such as delayed payments and altered grant end dates.

• Interviews: Engaging with affected researchers to gather firsthand accounts of funding disruptions and the opaque communication from federal officials.

"Our data team combed through it and was able to look for anomalies essentially. So they were able to pull out examples of projects that, you know, the NIH's own record showed should have gotten their funding three months ago, but it was still pending."
— Emily Anthis [04:00]

4. Findings: Patterns and Impacts of Funding Cuts

a. Volume and Anomaly of Canceled Grants

Contrary to the norm where grant cancellations are exceedingly rare, the team uncovered a staggering number of midstream cancellations:

"In just the first few months of this administration, we found 1400 awards that were canceled midstream, and that was 1400 as of the time we first published our findings three weeks ago. That number has now gone up to 1700 canceled awards."
— Emily Anthis [06:26]

b. Targeting Marginalized and Underrepresented Groups

A significant portion of the cuts targeted research focusing on marginalized populations and underrepresented groups. These grants often addressed specific health concerns within these communities, such as:

• Transgender Health: Studies exploring health disparities among transgender individuals.
• Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Research on conditions disproportionately affecting Black women or other ethnic groups.

"A lot of these grants were focused on marginalized groups, underrepresented groups, racial and ethnic minorities in some way."
— Emily Anthis [06:27]

c. Selection Mechanism: Keyword-Based Filtering

Insiders at the NIH indicated that the administration employed a rudimentary keyword search strategy to identify and target grants deemed "problematic."

"Some of these program officers will say they get lists of grants that have words like non binary or racism in the title, and they've sort of gotten the impression that someone somewhere has just hit control f and looked for some of these keywords to pick out grants that it doesn't think fits with the agenda."
— Emily Anthis [08:52]

d. Case Studies of Canceled Research

Several specific studies exemplify the breadth of the cuts:

1. Racism and Dementia Risk:
   • Study on how racism affects dementia risk in older Asian Americans.
2. Suicide Risk in Transgender Youth:
   • Research on reducing suicide risk among transgender and gender-diverse young adults.
3. COVID-19 Misinformation:
   • Identifying COVID-19 misinformation in Black and rural communities.
4. Genetic Causes of Bipolar Disorder:
   • Studying the genetic factors of bipolar disorder in East and South Asian populations.

"Here's one study, how racism affects dementia risk in older Asian Americans. Here's one that was canceled on identifying COVID 19 misinformation, including misinformation related to vaccines in black and rural communities."
— Emily Anthis [09:48]

e. Personal Impact on Researchers

The cuts have had profound personal and professional effects on researchers:

• Katherine Bogan’s Story:

  Katherine, a doctoral candidate, had her grant targeting the experiences of bisexual women with sexual violence abruptly canceled. She expresses frustration over the arbitrary nature of the cuts and emphasizes the societal importance of her research.

  "I don't think it matters whether I see my work as political, given that it was initially funded for being critical, sound, impactful science that could contribute to public well being. ... But I also think sound science is sound science, regardless of which identities are the focus of that work."
  — Katherine Bogan [13:15]

• Eden Tanner’s Experience:

  Eden, a chemist, faced the cancellation of a grant aimed at finding treatments for glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer. Her research had no direct ties to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, making the cut particularly perplexing.

  "Eden and her colleague had gotten their grant through a special funding mechanism that set aside money for researchers from underrepresented groups... her work has nothing to do with race or gender or specific subpopulations."
  — Emily Anthis [19:11]

5. Broader Implications: Politics and the Scientific Enterprise

The administration's actions have ignited a debate about the role of politics in science. While science inherently involves setting research priorities—which reflect societal values—there is concern that political interference may compromise the integrity and objectivity of scientific inquiry.

"It's just a different politics that's driving science."
— Emily Anthis [25:28]

Scientists argue that while reforming funding processes is necessary, the current approach risks turning science into a tool for political agendas rather than a pursuit of unbiased truth.

"The concern now is that that entire process becomes so polluted that science loses a lot of what makes it so valuable."
— Emily Anthis [28:02]

6. Administration’s Scientific Agenda: Shifting Priorities

The Trump administration appears to be redefining the NIH’s research focus towards areas aligning with its ideological stance. Emerging priorities include:

• Nutrition and Ultra-Processed Foods:
  • Aligned with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s interests.
• Transition Regret in Transgender Individuals:
  • Investigating negative consequences of gender transitioning.
• Autism and Vaccines:
  • Exploring potential links between childhood vaccines and autism, despite existing research debunking such connections.

"The NIH recently reached an agreement with the FDA to begin funding more research on nutrition, including, in particular, ultra processed foods... a potential link to childhood vaccines, which we know is another issue that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Is passionate about."
— Emily Anthis [23:37]

These shifts suggest a strategic move to fund research that may confirm preconceived notions, raising ethical concerns about the objectivity of scientific outcomes.

7. Recent Developments: NIH’s Temporary Reprieve

Following two court rulings challenging the administration's funding cuts, a senior NIH official issued an internal memo advising agency staff to halt further cancellation of research projects, at least temporarily. This directive represents a potential setback to the administration's funding strategy, though its longevity remains uncertain.

"In the wake of two court rulings that take issue with the Trump administration's cuts to medical research, a senior official at the National Institutes of Health is directing the agency staff members not to cancel any more research projects, at least for now."
— Natalie Kitroweff [29:52]

8. Conclusion: The Future of Science Funding Under Political Scrutiny

The episode underscores a critical juncture for American science, where political agendas are increasingly influencing funding decisions. The long-term ramifications could include diminished research diversity, loss of innovative studies, and erosion of trust between scientists and federal institutions. As the NIH navigates these tumultuous changes, the scientific community and the public remain vigilant, advocating for the preservation of objective, value-driven research.

"They are not taking the politics out of science. They seem to be just infusing scientific grant making with their politics."
— Emily Anthis [25:23]

The episode closes on a reflective note, highlighting the essential balance between political oversight and scientific autonomy, urging stakeholders to safeguard the integrity of scientific research amidst evolving political landscapes.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• "Are you in your closet?"
  — Natalie Kitroweff [00:47]

• "It's just a different politics that's driving science."
  — Emily Anthis [25:28]

• "We don't have science without politics. The questions you ask, the studies you fund, the topics you prioritize, all of those are reflections of politics, of values, of our societal concerns."
  — Emily Anthis [28:24]

Closing Remarks:

Natalie Kitroweff wraps up the episode by summarizing the ongoing tug-of-war between scientific integrity and political intervention, emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining a robust and unbiased scientific community for the advancement of public health and knowledge.