Officials are attempting to guide faculty members through confusion over the future of federal research funding after President Donald Trump’s now-rescinded freeze of federal funds last week.
The Trump administration Monday released a memo ordering temporary funding freezes for more than 2,000 federal programs and on Thursday rescinded the move, sparking concerns among researchers over the administration’s policies on federal research grants. Interim Vice Provost for Research Bob Miller said it is “too soon” to know the full impact of these executive actions but that the Office of Research is working with the Division of Development and Alumni Relations and other partners to bolster sources of nonfederal research funding.
“It is critical for any research-intensive academic institution to diversify its funding portfolio beyond federal funders,” Miller said in an email. “The Office of the Vice Provost for Research is providing encouragement and direct support to faculty who wish to engage with not-for-profit, corporate, philanthropic, or state and local government funders.”
The Trump administration said the freeze intended to allow officials to review which projects aligned with the administration’s values on climate change and diversity, equity and inclusion policies, which Trump has called “discrimination programs.” Trump also rolled back numerous policies aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions, including withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords on his first day in office.
The funding freeze followed instructions to federal health agencies to halt all travel and communications, like health advisories, updates on websites and social media communication. The pause in communication caused the National Science Foundation to cancel grant review panels, where experts allocate federal funding to research projects, including those at universities.
The GW Office of Sponsored Projects collaborated with the University this week to launch a webpage listing executive orders that may affect GW’s research activity. It also links announcements from federal agencies like the NSF.
In fiscal year 2024, 82 percent of GW research funding can be attributed to federal sources, Miller said. The University’s federal research expenditures rose from about $161.87 million in FY2022 to about $162.89 million in FY2023, according to the University’s annual research report presented in January.
“It is too soon to know the full extent of any impact on our federally-funded projects, but we recognize that these changes create a sense of uncertainty,” Miller said in an email. “The Office of the Provost is tracking developments closely along with our peer institutions.”
Provost Chris Bracey and Miller told faculty members in an email Tuesday that those with research projects impacted by executive actions should reach out to the Office of Sponsored Projects but that faculty should continue research as normal unless they have been notified their research was affected.
“If you are preparing federal proposals or reports, please continue to adhere to all previously announced deadlines,” the email stated. “Principal investigators with active awards should continue with planned activities, and should immediately forward any relevant notice from their sponsor to the Office of Sponsored Projects at [email protected].”
Miller said there was “trepidation” among faculty members regarding federal research funds due to the incoming Trump administration at the Faculty Senate’s January meeting. He said the University’s research administrators must be ready to respond to “changes in the opportunities” that come from GW’s external funders.
Tony Yang, a professor of health policy and management at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, said he has four active federally funded research projects studying COVID-19 vaccine uptake, tobacco use and cannabis policy, for which continued funding is “essential” to continue.
Yang said that despite Trump reversing the funding freeze, there still may be certain areas of research that continue to face obstacles, like his study of vaccines, as Trump has expressed doubts in their effectiveness and falsely linked vaccines to autism in December. Projects involving DEI are also particularly at risk, Yang said.
“While the order has been rescinded, the long-term outlook remains unclear — particularly for research related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as vaccine hesitancy and climate changes,” Yang said in an email. “These areas are likely to face heightened scrutiny, and funding for such projects may be at serious risk. Researchers are closely monitoring the situation to assess how policy shifts may impact their work.”
Yang said he has kept in close contact with his funding partners like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. He said universities need to advocate for continued federal funding for research on behalf of their faculty and researchers.
“There is certainly concern among faculty regarding the stability of research funding under the new administration,” Yang said. “To ensure continued support, faculty must remain committed to producing high-impact research, explore alternative funding sources — including private foundations and industry partnerships — and stay engaged with federal agencies to navigate potential policy shifts.”
Romi Burks, a professor of biology at Southwestern University, said she was slated to serve on one of NSF’s grant review panels last week. She said she was “frustrated” when the freeze canceled the panel because of the time she had put into reviewing the projects requesting grants and the delay in funding that she said will follow the panels’ cancellation.
“The decisions need to be made,” Burks said. “Perhaps in some cases, those grants include salary, either for the scientists themselves, or, more likely, for their students or postdocs. All of that would be delayed, and so it’s both angry and very frustrating to see that without what I would identify as due cause, that an administration’s overreach is penetrating down to the level of an agency review.”
Stephen Crystal, the director of the Center for Health Services Research at Rutgers University, said postdoctoral students and junior faculty who lack tenure and financial security are most harmed by a loss in federal funds. Crystal said he has spent the last few days speaking with graduate students and researchers who are scared about their futures.
At many institutions, junior faculty who do not succeed in their first grant applications won’t get tenure, and they will have to leave the field, he said.
“They’re collateral damage in a bigger war,” Crystal said. “And the bigger war is taking the whole federal investment in public health research, in a sense, hostage for political purposes.”
Crystal said these executive actions are indicative of the administration’s “hostility” toward higher education and that researchers will have to continue to navigate funding attacks for the duration of Trump’s term.
“This is kind of the tragic part, is that they can succeed in breaking the system,” Crystal said. “There is not an alternative funding source.”