On a bright Friday afternoon in March, several SMEA peers and I convened at Seattle Center alongside what felt like thousands of fellow outraged Seattleites to protest the Trump administration’s policies against science. Ours was one of over 30 parallel Stand Up for Science rallies across the country on March 7th, 2025. Signs borne by the crowd expressed numerous grievances, including the Trump administration’s policies on public health and the environment, cuts to research funding, and the dismantlement of federal agencies. A fiery lineup of speakers—including Governor Bob Ferguson, recently fired federal employees, healthcare workers, and scientists from many disciplines—lamented how recent policies have impacted their work, and urged the crowd to continue speaking out.

The author and friends at the Seattle Stand Up for Science rally. Photo courtesy of Beatrice Pickett, shared with permission.

In less than four months, the Trump administration has taken sweeping action to dismantle scientific work across the federal bureaucracy. At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), plans are in the works to eliminate the Office of Research and Development, the agency’s research arm, which conducts critical monitoring work. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is getting the same treatment, with funds slashed and research programs disbanded. The NOAA research targeted by the administration contributes to weather forecasts, disaster warnings, and monitoring of global climate system indicators. The Department of Health and Human Services has cut funds to programs tracking the spread of infectious diseases, and a recent memo suggests that further health research cuts are impending. Beyond impacting thousands of hardworking federal scientists now out of jobs, these cuts affect critical information that many people take for granted.

In addition to blocking ongoing government research and monitoring, the Trump administration has scraped previously-published data and resources from agency websites. Publicly-available government data informs local policymaking and emergency planning and undergirds people’s everyday and business decisions. For example, the EPA has discontinued EJScreen, an online mapping tool that aggregated socioeconomic, public health, and environmental quality data in order to analyze the distribution of environmental justice burdens. EJScreen was used heavily by researchers and policymakers as well as community advocates. Already, disrupted access to data is hurting American industries. A coalition of farmers is suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture for removing critical information that they depend on to adapt their practices in a changing climate. While the Trump administration has justified many of its actions under the guise of “government efficiency”, the resources deleted from government websites are the products of research that has already been completed, funded by taxpayer dollars. There is nothing efficient about curtailing access to public information.

These policies undercut our nation’s contributions to science cooperation at the global level. Not only has the Trump administration initiated proceedings to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accords, but they have also blocked federal scientists from participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC convenes the world’s top climate experts to periodically synthesize research into status reports for policymakers and the public, providing rigorously-vetted and consensus-based updates on the state of the climate and its future trajectories. It is unclear how American withdrawal may impact the progress of this critical and time-sensitive work, which informs global climate planning as well as local decision making. The Trump administration has also impeded global monitoring of critical environmental and public health metrics. The Department of State has stopped monitoring and publishing air quality data from embassies around the globe, halting what was once a reliable tool to hold foreign governments accountable for pollution and inform global stakeholders (and Americans abroad) about public health risks.

So much is at stake due to these cuts to science within federal agencies. Tragically, the Trump administration’s funding cuts are also reaching far beyond the federal bureaucracy and into academia, where cancelled grants have upended research and put many long-term partnerships at risk. Academia is largely dependent on federal funding for research and development, with American universities receiving $60 billion annually from federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF). Disruptions to these funding streams jeopardize the functioning of colleges and universities. In February, the Trump administration moved to reduce the grant funding that universities can use to cover indirect costs which are essential to research, such as maintaining laboratory buildings. Caps on indirect costs hit biomedical research particularly hard due to its extensive facility and equipment needs, jeopardizing future medical progress. These caps have been challenged in court and temporarily blocked by a federal judge, but nonetheless create deep uncertainty for universities.  

Perhaps more troubling than these blanket funding cuts are the Trump administration’s pernicious efforts to restrict academic freedom and censor research content. The most high profile example of this is the administration’s recent clash with Harvard University, withholding over $2 billion in grant funding after the university refused to cave to an extraordinary list of demands that would impact their admissions and hiring processes as well as academic programs. Though the administration’s battle with the Ivy League draws attention, its nationwide censorship of academic research is no less disturbing. Shortly after Trump took office, the NSF began flagging awarded grants containing keywords that relate to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Over four hundred of these grants were recently terminated. Grants related to climate change are being similarly targeted. This political censorship of research is antithetical to the nature of science. We cannot effectively research and communicate about climate change and other pressing issues if scientists cannot address these issues with their full reach of specific and nuanced language.

“On the first day of class, I felt compelled to acknowledge the unreality of teaching my students to conduct scientific research when this field is so actively jeopardized by federal policy. If my students discover a love for scientific research, federal funding cuts may prevent them from pursuing further study or careers in science.”

This is a bizarre time to be a graduate student studying environmental science and policy. Academia has traditionally served as a refuge in times of unsteady economies, but now there is so much uncertainty not only about our prospects after graduation but also about the funding and opportunities available to us now. This quarter, I am working as a teaching assistant for an undergraduate course on environmental research methods. On the first day of class, I felt compelled to acknowledge the unreality of teaching my students to conduct scientific research when this field is so actively jeopardized by federal policy. If my students discover a love for scientific research, federal funding cuts may prevent them from pursuing further study or careers in science. Though the statistics are so far unclear, some universities have paused or reduced admissions for incoming PhD students or even rescinded informal admissions offers. This is a particularly unsteady time for international students. The Department of Homeland Security has recently revoked the visas of over 1,000 international students at colleges and universities across the country, without warning and sometimes without any explanation. These challenges create tremendous uncertainty for young people deciding how and where to invest their careers. Foreseeably, some students may steer away from the sciences, leaving a generational gap in expertise for decades to come. 

The long-term implications of this moment are unclear. Presumably, much of federal research work and data collections will migrate to academia and nonprofits or relocate internationally. But disrupted funding streams, as well as the lingering chaos of the past months, ensure that this transition will not be seamless. With no plausible funding source that can replace the magnitude of lost research grants, the private sector may seek to fill some of this gap. But if scientific research were driven by profit rather than inquiry, this would fundamentally transform the character of science and limit the questions that it pursues. This prospect raises numerous questions about scientific integrity and information access inequities. Will weather forecasts exist behind a paywall? 

The Trump administration’s war on science is alarming, particularly because it seems to directly counteract America’s best interests. Normally, when there are government policies I disagree with, I can at least understand the intention behind them, even if viscerally opposed to my own values. But when it comes to cuts to even seemingly noncontroversial science programs, I struggle to make sense of these decisions, which seem so shortsighted. Is it not in our best interests to continue making critical advancements and maintain America’s position at the cutting edge of research in medicine and technology? Is it not in our best interests to equip ourselves with the best information with which to tackle environmental and public health crises, which won’t disappear with deleted databases? Is it not in our best interests to attract and nurture the brightest and most inquisitive minds to answer the most pressing questions of the future? To wage a war on science is to jeopardize America’s future economic standing and national security. Today’s investments in science will tip the geopolitical and economic scales of the coming decades. Today’s disinvestments and censorship of science will have immeasurable consequences that long outlive this administration. 

I grappled with how to conclude this article given the enormity of this moment. There is no personal “call to action” that I can think of that quite matches up to the scale of what is at stake. But nonetheless, there are emboldening examples of persistence and resistance that we can celebrate. There are organizations such as the Public Environmental Data Partners that are racing to archive government databases and make critical information accessible to all. There are dedicated scientists who haven’t wavered from their work despite federal pressure, including contributors to the IPCC who have even self-funded their travel to international meetings. There are attorneys general who have challenged federal actions through the courts, and judges who have stood up for science, at least for now. There are community organizers and activists who have organized demonstrations such as the Stand Up for Science rallies and subsequent protests. There are students who show up to class every day and forge ahead boldly despite their uncertainty about future opportunities. 

None of these actions can serve to minimize the damage posed by federal funding cuts and censorship of science—damage to our planet, to public health, to our national standing, to students and scientists, and to communities across America and around the globe. But science needs us to stay engaged. I believe that engagement can take different forms in different contexts. Engagement can look like public-facing activism or advocacy, or unvarnished conversations within our own families and communities about the significance of what is happening. For scientists, engagement includes undeterred pursuit of important questions and public communication of critical information. For universities and other influential institutions, engagement means defending academic freedom. For all of us, engagement demands alertness. We cannot let the Trump administration’s assault on science get swept beneath other headlines. In whatever form we can, science needs us to stand up. 

It is easy to become overwhelmed with political and climate anxiety, but sustained engagement requires caring for our own mental health and wellbeing. Learn more about mental health resources at the College of the Environment here.

Editor’s note: Since this article went through the publication process, the Trump administration has reversed its position on the cancellation of most student visas. Given the frequency with which the Trump Administration has changed or reversed its position on a variety of issues, we’ve decided to keep the article’s original content on the subject. Readers are welcome to submit concerns, questions, or updates regarding policies addressed in student articles by emailing Currents’ Editor-in-Chief directly.