Trump's cuts threaten to rip research up by the roots
Advertisement
Dennis E. Noonan
Wellesley
Thank you for Kara Miller's article on the challenges of long-term research in the face of the Trump administration's cuts (
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
While only a small fraction of original ideas achieve success as envisioned, scientists consistently persevere with passion for their ideas. The research environment overall, however, brings waves of advances.
Unlike the business and dealmaking mind-set of the current administration's so-called leaders, scientists are not self-promoters by type. They struggle for funding over years, driven by their passion for making a difference for the world.
Advertisement
The most telling risk inherent in the Trump cuts is the potential impact on global competition. As Miller points out, for decades some of the world's best minds have come here, with the United States having benefited. But more recently, greater global tools and competition have prompted serious foreign competition for the best minds — and for the opportunities to control future technologies.
The administration's cuts would put the United States more than a generation behind in our children's and grandchildren's future world.
Larry Kennedy
Jacksonville, Fla.
I weep when I see what the Trump administration is doing to our country and our world. Kara Miller's article on the savaging of basic science — 'research aimed at understanding rather than commercializing' — is but one example.
This type of research may have no application right away. However, over 20 or 30 years, many dozens of applications may emerge, often covering many different fields. The original development rarely occurs in business laboratories because there is no immediate payoff. It is therefore essential that government continue to fund basic science. As Miller points out, a stable flow of funding is essential for the production of a continuing stream of research results.
Disruption of the Trumpian kind has several undesirable results: Besides stopping the flow of original ideas, over the long term it will reduce our capacity to learn from and absorb ideas produced in other countries. We have seen mid-career scientists being welcomed by other countries while the paths of early-career scientists have been demolished.
American politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, must stand up to the president and say, 'Basic research is the seed corn for 'Making America Great Again.' It must not be destroyed.' They should then act and vote accordingly in Congress.
Advertisement
Martin G. Evans
Cambridge
The writer is a professor emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
20 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump touts U.S. as "most respected country" as he marks six months in office
President Trump touted the U.S. as the "hottest" and "most respected country in the world" on Sunday as he reached the six-month mark of his second White House term. The big picture: Trump's second term has come with a series of challenges both at home and abroad, though he has seen some successes with the passage of the " big, beautiful bill" and the Supreme Court ruling in his favor in several significant cases. In a Truth Social post Sunday, the president claimed his second term is "being hailed as one of the most consequential periods of any President." "In other words, we got a lot of good and great things done, including ending numerous wars of Countries not related to us other than through Trade and/or, in certain cases, friendship," he continued. "Six months is not a long time to have totally revived a major Country. One year ago our Country was DEAD, with almost no hope of revival. Today the USA is the 'hottest' and most respected Country anywhere in the World. Happy Anniversary!!!" he wrote. Zoom out: Trump's administration has negotiated three ceasefire deals between six countries since he took office in January, but efforts to generate an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, as well as Israel and Hamas haven't materialized. During his 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly said he would end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours if he returned to the White House. Between the lines: In a separate Truth Social post, Trump touted his approval ratings, claiming that his numbers among Republicans have gone as high as 95% in "various polls." It's unclear which polls the president was referring. According to Gallup, Trump's June approval rating was 40% among voters across both parties, down from 47% when he took office in January. When broken down by party, 86% of Republicans approved of Trump's job as president in June. 36% of Independents and 1% of Democrats agreed. A CBS News/You Gov poll published Sunday showed similar numbers. Overall, the president had a 42% approval rating, with 89% of GOP, 32% of Independents and 5% of Democrats giving their approval. Zoom out: Trump said in his post that his numbers had been boosted by "Radical Left Democrats" exposing the "Jeffrey Epstein hoax."
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
FEMA uncertainty hangs over hurricane season
Uncertainty is hanging over this year's hurricane season as meteorologists predict 'above-normal' activity and the Trump administration sends shifting signals over the future of the federal government's role in natural disaster response. Despite talk of eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its current form, the administration says it remains 'laser focused on disaster response and protecting the American people.' But red and blue states alike say they aren't sure what the future of FEMA looks like. In June, at a hurricane preparedness news conference, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) was asked whether the state could take on more responsibilities amid the administration's push for states to take a bigger role. 'I don't know what added responsibilities that would be,' he responded. A handful of states have set up task forces or commissions to prepare for changes being discussed in Washington. A bipartisan coalition of Georgia state lawmakers led by state Rep. Clint Crowe (R) created a study committee on disaster mitigation. Kentucky's state Legislature passed a law creating a task force to prepare for potential changes in FEMA funding. Republican state Sen. Matthew Deneen, who co-sponsored the Kentucky bill, said the panel would make sure the state is prepared for whatever comes. 'Well, I think that any time that we're going to have change coming out of Washington, D.C., on the federal level, you know, we don't know exactly what those numbers are going to be, and so it's very important for us to be agile, to be responsive and to be prepared,' he told The Hill. Trump administration officials and some Republicans on Capitol Hill argue the agency is inefficient and should take a more supportive role, with states taking the lead in disaster response. 'Federal emergency management should be state and locally led rather than how it has operated for decades,' Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem said earlier this month. 'This entire agency needs to be eliminated as it exists today and remade into a responsive agency,' she added. But rhetoric from President Trump's officials shifted toward reforming FEMA, rather than axing it entirely, following the devastating floods in Texas this month. Noem faced criticism over reports of botched disaster response efforts, and the Houston Chronicle editorial board even slammed Noem's leadership, comparing FEMA's response to the Texas floods to the Hurricane Katrina debacle. The Texas floods killed at least 120 people, with more than 100 still missing. A preliminary estimate from AccuWeather projects the disaster to cost between $18 billion and $22 billion. Still, Trump has praised Noem's handling of the floods and brushed off reports that her changes to funding decisions slowed down the federal response in Texas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) is forecasting 13 to 19 named storms this hurricane season, including three to five major hurricanes in the Atlantic basin. 'As we witnessed last year with significant inland flooding from hurricanes Helene and Debby, the impacts of hurricanes can reach far beyond coastal communities,' acting NOAA Administrator Laura Grimm said in May. A FEMA spokesperson said in a statement there is 'no uncertainty about what FEMA will be doing this Hurricane Season.' 'The old processes are being replaced because they failed Americans in real emergencies for decades,' a spokesperson said. Stretching state budgets States, however, are facing a barrage of new budget demands as federal lawmakers cut spending on issues ranging from health care to natural disasters. In April, FEMA suspended its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, eliminating $882 million in federal funding. The program helped communities reduce risk hazards by providing economic support for states to improve disaster prevention. Twenty states sued FEMA this past week, alleging unlawful termination of congressionally approved grants. The lawsuit highlighted that many projects, in the works for years and meant to prevent devastating damage, are left unfinished or paused. The FEMA spokesperson said BRIC was a 'wasteful and ineffective FEMA program.' Two-thirds of the counties that received grants under the program voted for Trump in 2024, according to a CBS analysis of FEMA data. Colin Foard, director of the Pew Charitable Trust's fiscal risk project, said the latest moves are compounding existing pressures on state budgets. 'States were already facing challenges of rising disaster costs, and our research shows that their traditional budgeting approaches were beginning to fall short in the face of those rising costs,' Foard said. 'So, as states are deciding how they can more proactively budget for disasters, that will come at the cost of trade-offs in other policy areas,' he added. States are already bracing for sweeping federal cuts to Medicaid services. About 16 million Americans are expected to lose their health insurance by 2034 under Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' likely leaving states to pick up more of the slack to cover increasing medical costs. 'If states lost FEMA reimbursement on top of the hole they just blew in their health care budget because of the lack of federal funding … there are states that are just a ticking time bomb,' Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), a former Florida emergency management director, told The Hill. Preparing for the worst Mathew Sanders, a senior officer at Pew, said states should focus their resources on proactive measures. 'I would argue the states need to increase their spending on long-term risk reduction. It's always cheaper to reduce risk, to avoid risk, than it is to recover from a disaster,' Sanders said. 'One thing that I think is absolutely true, is that, across the disaster spectrum, the federal government is the predominant funder,' he added. 'And so, you know, whatever the federal government may not provide in the future, states, localities, that's a gap that's going to need to be filled from other sources.' When it comes to where those gaps might be, or whether states can fill them, there are more questions than answers. Last fall's Hurricane Helene prompted some forward thinking on these questions in states that were hit. The study committee in Georgia recommended building code updates and a reforestation tax credit. The tax credit was signed into law in May. Both North Carolina's and South Carolina's emergency agencies are seeking to foster more private sector collaborations and connections with other state emergency management organizations. A spokesperson from North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein's (D) office said eliminating FEMA entirely would be a 'man-made disaster.' 'We need FEMA to help us address natural disasters. Let's work together to improve FEMA so we are ready for future disasters,' the spokesperson added. It's not only hurricane-prone states that are bracing themselves for change and looking for clarity on what's ahead. Republican South Dakota Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen helms a state task force established in June to prepare for potential changes at FEMA. 'I … understand that the federal government has a spending problem and needs to tighten the belt in some areas. And so, we are sympathetic to that, but we really need to know what the details are,' Venhuizen told The Hill.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
All Americans deserve quality legal support — enter the Legal Services Corporation
In our years representing communities across the country, from rural Michigan to the Florida coast, from Greater Boston to urban Indiana, one truth held steady: government works best when it meets people where they are and helps them solve real problems. Civil legal services do exactly that. Every day, in every congressional district, Americans face civil legal problems they can't handle alone — often through no fault of their own. These aren't partisan issues. They involve life-affecting circumstances: a veteran wrongfully denied benefits, a senior scammed by a contractor, a survivor of domestic violence seeking a protection order, a relative trying to adopt a child who has lost his parents. Without legal help, these problems can spiral, threatening families, livelihoods and community stability. That's where the Legal Services Corporation comes in. The four of us come from different political parties, but we share the belief that basic legal support should not be reserved for those who can afford a lawyer. And we believe strongly that any federal program must be accountable, limited in scope and transparent to taxpayers. That's exactly what the Legal Services Corporation delivers. Nearly 95 percent of the Legal Services Corporation's budget goes straight to local legal assistance providers that operate in every state and territory, including all 435 congressional districts. The rest supports oversight and accountability. Rather than building bureaucracy, the Legal Services Corporation strengthens the work of community-based partners that understand local needs. At a time when Congress is grappling with the responsible use of taxpayer dollars, it stands out as a model of smart, effective investment. What's more, Congress has placed some of the strictest limitations in government on how LSC funds can be used. By law, grantees are prohibited from engaging in political activity or filing class actions, immigration cases or policy litigation. These guardrails ensure that taxpayer dollars are used for one purpose: helping everyday Americans resolve legal problems before they grow more complex and costly. And it works. Studies show that every $1 invested in civil legal aid through LSC returns nearly $7 in economic value, including savings for courts, shelters and emergency services, and increased economic productivity. When people can resolve legal problems early, they're more likely to stay in the workforce, care for their families and contribute to their communities. That means fewer costly emergencies and a stronger local economy. In an era of rising skepticism toward Washington, the Legal Services Corporation is a model of how taxpayer investment should operate: locally delivered, fiscally efficient and laser-focused on real impact. We've seen the difference legal assistance makes for our constituents — and we know the current lawmakers we all once served with have, too. This isn't just another budget line. It's a lifeline for millions of hardworking Americans. Congress would be smart to continue this vital investment for our communities across America. Susan Brooks is a Republican and former U.S. representative from Indiana. Joe Kennedy, a former U.S. special envoy for Northern Ireland, is a Democrat and former U.S. representative from Massachusetts. Patrick Murphy is a Democrat and former U.S. representative from Pennsylvania who also served as the 32nd United States undersecretary of the Army. Fred Upton is a Republican and former U.S. representative from Michigan.
