The Trump administration's Threat to Scientific Research

# The Trump Administration's Threat to Scientific Research - Marginal REVOLUTION Source: [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/07/the-trump-administrations-threat-to-scientific-research.html](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/07/the-trump-administrations-threat-to-scientific-research.html) In[The Nationalization of American Science](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/06/the-nationalization-of-american-science.html)I warned that the Trump administration’s rewriting of the seemingly mundane[Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance](https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2026-10817)was a tremendous threat to America’s historically successful decentralized system of science funding\. Many others are now sounding the alarm\. It’s not surprising that organizations like the AAAS oppose the rule, albeit with unusually[strongly worded dissents](https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-statement-omb-rule-politicizing-federal-grantmaking): > This latest move is a brazen power grab by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to buck the will of Congress and the American people and will make future discoveries less likely\. If this rule becomes final, Americans’ hopes for future cures, national security and economic strength will rely on the scientific sensibilities of the nation’s chief bureaucrat\. Alzheimer’s disease will not be cured by a budget analyst from either political party\. But we are now seeing strong pushback from independent thinkers such as: [Grayson Logue writing at The Dispatch](https://thedispatch.com/article/office-of-management-and-budget-vought-grantmaking-rules/): > A sweeping new rule proposed by the Trump administration could remake how that money is awarded and give the president and his political appointees discretion to cancel funding or target recipients for virtually any reason—with little opportunity for recourse\. White House officials argue the new rule is necessary to assert more accountability over federal grantmaking, but observers fear the shift will expand opportunities for politicization, abuse, and even corruption for an administration that has already demonstrated a penchant for using the levers of the federal government to punish partisan enemies and reward ideological allies\. [Dan Drezner](https://danieldrezner.substack.com/p/the-trump-administrations-existential): > if I was trying to ruin American leadership in scientific research this is pretty much the kind of rule I would write…One of the genuine difficulties with observing the second Trump term is that the assault on[state](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/military-failures-trump-iran/686244/)[capacity](https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2026/06/state-capacity-and-american-power)and[impartiality](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/end-american-exceptionalism)has been so multipronged that it is difficult to keep track of everything going on\. But these proposed rule changes are monumental and catastrophic\. and[Noah Smith](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/magas-attack-on-science-is-even-worse): > MAGA’s attack on science is even worse than it looks…despite science’s overwhelming popularity and public trust, Trump and his administration are launching an unprecedented and devastating attack on American science — cutting funding, and forcing science projects to undergo ideological review by government commissars\. It may be that the Trump administration has pushed too far, but my real worry is that we are losing an equilibrium\. Science was never completely independent of politics, of course, but even at the worst of times, funding was decentralized and the culture\-war material that dominated the headlines was never more than a tiny fraction of the whole\. Like an independent judiciary, independent science has been an American virtue\. COVID policy, gender policy, and now the Trump administration’s weaponization of these mistakes may have destroyed that equilibrium\. As I wrote in my[original post](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/06/the-nationalization-of-american-science.html), we are adopting the loser policies of authoritarian nations but those policies are the norm elsewhere for a reason\. Centralized control of science is the default because it serves the people in power of whatever party\. Decentralization is the fragile exception—a historically unusual achievement that is easier to destroy than rebuild\. Addendum: And here is[Andrew Gelman](https://statmodeling.substack.com/p/gold-standard-lysenko)\.