War on research: Shutdown reshapes American science

WASHINGTON: US science always suffers during government shutdowns. Funding lapses send government scientists home without pay. Federal agencies suspend new grant opportunities, place review panels on hold, and stop collecting and analysing vital public datasets about the economy, the environment, and public health.

In 2025, the stakes are higher than ever.

This shutdown arrives amid massive upheaval in American science, driven by President Donald Trump’s efforts to extend executive power and assert political control over scientific institutions.

Now entering its fifth week with no resolution in sight, it coincides with rapid, contentious changes to federal research policy that are rewriting the social contract between the government and research universities, once based on funding and autonomy in exchange for public benefit.

As a physicist and policy scholar who studies and depends on federal science funding, I see firsthand the consequences of these shifts. In the context of broader reforms to grantmaking, immigration, and scientific integrity, this shutdown has both known and unknown effects on the future of US science.

Funding freezes, data gaps, and unpaid workers

Over the past two decades, shutdowns have become familiar episodes in US governance. They occur when Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill before the fiscal year begins on October 1. Without it, the government legally cannot spend money.

Only essential services — postal workers, air traffic controllers, satellite operators — continue. Nonessential employees, including tens of thousands of government scientists, are barred from working and go unpaid.

With scientists and program officers at home, research activity at nearly two dozen federal agencies, from the National Science Foundation to the National Institutes of Health, grinds to a halt. New grants and review panels are postponed, government laboratories stop data collection, and university projects reliant on federal funds stall.

The longer the shutdown lasts, the deeper the damage. Data gaps widen, employees fall into debt, and universities lay off staff supported by government grants. Extended shutdowns not only erode research capacity but also the morale and trust that sustain the nation’s scientific enterprise.

Funding, public services, and the rule of law

Even brief shutdowns create months of administrative backlog — missed paychecks, delayed grants, and rescheduled peer review panels. This year, the challenge is amplified by the Trump administration’s use of the shutdown to “shutter the bureaucracy” and pressure universities to align with its ideological positions on campus speech, gender identity, and admissions.

As the standoff nears the record for the longest in US history, furloughs, cancelled grants, and stalled infrastructure projects reveal the immediate damage to the government’s capacity to serve the public. Yet the broader consequences — for America’s international competitiveness, economic security, and scientific leadership — may take years to unfold.

Compounding these issues are declining international student enrollments, financial strain on research institutions, and new research security measures aimed at curbing foreign interference. Together, they threaten the vitality of American higher education and innovation.

Meanwhile, neither the White House nor Congress shows signs of compromise. Trump continues to test the limits of executive authority, often reinterpreting or ignoring established law. In October, he redirected unspent research funds to pay furloughed service members — a move that directly challenges Congress’s constitutional power to control spending.

The White House has also vowed to fire 10,000 additional civil servants, threatened to withhold back pay from furloughed workers, and pushed to end any programs with lapsed funding “not consistent with the President’s priorities.” Each of these actions expands presidential control at Congress’s expense. If Trump and budget director Russell Vought succeed in chipping away more authority, the next three years could see widespread rescission or repurposing of research funds — potentially dismantling decades of bipartisan science policy.

Science, democracy, and global competition

Technology has long been central to national security, but science now drives geopolitical and cultural change. China’s meteoric rise as a scientific power over the past three decades has challenged the notion that innovation thrives only in liberal democracies.

Trump’s centralisation of grantmaking, restrictions on free speech, and erasure of public data mirror aspects of China’s technocratic model — one that builds scientific capacity while suppressing dissent. The irony is striking: in seeking to outcompete China, the US risks imitating its approach.

As the Trump administration’s vision for American science takes shape, the critical question remains: after the shutdown, will the US be capable of competing globally by following the very model it once opposed?

The Conversation