The anti-scientific revolution: Trump’s policies are reversing America’s global dominance in academic research

At the very start of his new term, Trump issued an executive order to terminate “radical and costly” DEI initiatives. Soon after the presidential decree, a memorandum followed requiring all federal funding to be frozen and reviewed for compliance with the new order. Although a court later ruled the memorandum illegal and ordered it rescinded, major federal agencies like the NSF chose to play it safe — keeping the freeze in place and gradually revoking support for the types of projects Trump had deemed “not really necessary.”

Elon Musk, too, played a part. On April 17, his pseudo-agency DOGE, created by Trump, gained access to NSF’s databases and computers and began canceling already approved grants. The next day, the NSF published its “updated priorities,” which aligned with directives from DOGE and Trump. Soon thereafter, the foundation began mass-mailing the so-called “death letters.” It was at that point that Dr. Filser received hers.

According to data obtained by The New York Times, most grant cancellations were done using a “Ctrl-F” approach — simply deleting applications that contained any of the forbidden words or phrases. Among the keywords were not only “DEI” and “inclusion,” but also terms such as “historically,” “trauma,” “gender,” “pollution,” “political,” “tribal,” or “status.”

The overhaul of research policy didn’t stop there. Under Trump’s proposed budget and his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the NSF was to see its funding cut by about 57 percent, and the NIH by 43 percent.

On top of that, on May 23, 2025, Trump unveiled an executive order with the self-congratulatory title “Restoring the Gold Standard in Science.” The order’s preamble promised to make federal research more “reproducible, transparent, interdisciplinary...and free from conflicts of interest.”

In practice, however, the order is likely to achieve the opposite. In comments to The Guardian, Nobel laureates and leading researchers compared it — once again — to “Lysenkoism” and dubbed it “fool’s gold.” Rather than fostering scientific progress, they argue, the order is designed to tighten political control over research. It greatly expands the government’s influence over science, granting White House appointees the authority to label any undesired study illegitimate based solely on personal judgment. It also gives Trump-appointed bureaucrats the authority to review and delay grants, and to penalize scientists who deviate from the administration’s goals.