NIH Cuts: Defunding Science, Dismantling Truth
I was just about to start driving up to Keystone, Colorado, for a couple of days of snowboarding with my family when I first heard the news about the NIH funding cuts. And I want to talk not just about how devastating these cuts will be for scientific research, but also about the bigger picture. Because this isn’t just about budgets. It’s part of a larger movement aimed at eroding trust in science and expertise, making it harder for institutions to function and easier to discredit the research they produce.
On Friday, the Trump administration announced that it would immediately cut funding for indirect costs on NIH research grants, capping payments at 15%, which is a significant reduction from the current average of about 30%. While indirect costs may not fund specific experiments, they are essential for maintaining the infrastructure that makes research possible. These funds cover laboratory upkeep, secure data storage, grant administration, regulatory compliance, and even basic utilities, like keeping the lights on.
Without adequate funding for these critical expenses, scientific research simply cannot function. Laboratories will struggle to maintain advanced equipment, data security could be compromised, and universities may be forced to cut staff, limit research projects, and become more reliant on private industry funding.
Scientists and academic institutions are warning that this move could have devastating consequences. By slashing support for the backbone of research, the policy threatens to shrink university budgets, force layoffs, slow down scientific progress, and weaken the United States’ global leadership in biomedical research.
Yet while this decision is deeply concerning, it is not particularly surprising.
During Trump’s first term, his administration proposed a significant cut to the NIH budget in 2017, aiming for a nearly 20% reduction. This proposal faced bipartisan opposition in Congress and was ultimately not enacted. But the broader effort to scale back federal investment in education and scientific research remains a priority for this administration. A low cap on indirect costs for NIH grants was a specific policy outlined in Project 2025, a conservative initiative aimed at restructuring federal agencies that Trump had previously distanced himself from during his campaign, but now appears to be fully embracing.
Because this is not just about budgets. It’s part of a broader effort to erode trust in science itself.
How the Right Manufactured a Crisis in Scientific Research
For decades, conservative movements have worked to erode trust in science, often framing scientific consensus as partisan or ideologically driven. Under Reagan, the administration dismissed scientific evidence on acid rain and slashed the EPA’s budget, weakening environmental protections. The Bush administration furthered this trend by downplaying climate change research, restricting federal funding for embryonic stem cell studies, and even editing government reports to cast doubt on global warming. These efforts, often justified as fighting bureaucratic overreach or protecting moral values, set the stage for the more aggressive anti-science rhetoric seen today, which is amplified by social media and movements like Make America Healthy Again (MAHA).
One of the most effective ways conservative movements have eroded trust in science is by attacking the very mechanisms that fund it. By sowing distrust in every major source of research funding, industry, federal grants, and even philanthropic foundations, they have created a landscape where no scientific work is seen as credible. Most people outside of research don’t fully understand how funding works, making them especially vulnerable to narratives that paint all scientific funding as corrupt or politically motivated. The result? A growing belief that all science is biased, manipulated, or driven by hidden agendas, ultimately achieving the goal of dismantling public trust in expertise altogether.
Industry Funded Research
At first, the primary target was industry-funded research, particularly in pharmaceuticals. Right-wing populists and media figures claimed that drug companies manipulated studies for profit, positioning themselves as truth-seekers exposing corruption. In reality, while conflicts of interest can exist in industry-funded research, there are rigorous safeguards in place to work to prevent bias. For example, researchers must disclose funding sources, undergo extensive ethics training, and adhere to strict peer-review and regulatory standards. But instead of advocating for stronger oversight or reforms that would increase transparency, these voices ignore these safeguards altogether, using legitimate concerns as a pretext to discredit science as a whole. Because their goal was never to fix flaws in the system, but instead to delegitimize scientific research entirely.
Federally Funded Research
Then came the attack on government-funded research. The Trump administration, by capping NIH indirect costs on Friday, portrayed publicly funded science as “wasteful” and accused universities, which have long been viewed by certain conservative factions as liberal strongholds, of misusing taxpayer dollars. Simultaneously, the MAHA movement amplified this rhetoric, labeling health agencies like the FDA, CDC, and NIH as “corrupt,” further eroding public trust in these institutions.
This narrative is both deliberate and misleading. It ignores the stringent processes required to secure federal research grants, including rigorous peer review, adherence to ethical standards, and compliance with strict regulations. Yet federally funded research has driven some of the most important medical breakthroughs, from life-saving cancer treatments to immunizations for deadly diseases. Ironically, by undermining trust in government-funded research and cutting funding to agencies like the NIH, institutions could be more reliant on private industry funding (like from Big Pharma), increasing the very corporate influence that critics claim to oppose.
Foundation Funded Research
Even foundation-funded research, which makes up a relatively small share of total research funding, hasn’t escaped scrutiny. Organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, renowned for their extensive efforts in global health, education, and poverty alleviation, have been recast by some right-wing commentators as sinister actors pushing a “woke” agenda. For instance, Fox News, a frequent critic of the foundation, claimed it was funding "race-based initiatives" and "woke" programs to promote a particular ideological agenda. In reality, much of this funding supports Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) programs, which help students develop essential skills such as self-awareness, emotional regulation, relationship building, and responsible decision-making. Research has shown that SEL programs improve academic performance, enhance emotional well-being, and reduce behavioral issues. These kinds of narratives don’t just undermine trust in philanthropic organizations, they also fuel broader skepticism toward vaccine research, public health initiatives, and climate science, framing them as political battlegrounds rather than legitimate scientific inquiry. In doing so, they further erode public trust in research itself.
Recognizing Legitimate Concerns in Scientific Research
It’s important to acknowledge that scientific research (like any human-driven endeavor) is not infallible. There have been real cases of misconduct and conflicts of interest that have eroded public trust. The 2006 Duke University scandal, where falsified genomic data led to wasted funding and put cancer patients at risk, is one example. Pharmaceutical companies have suppressed negative trial results, as seen in Purdue Pharma’s role in the opioid crisis. Fraudulent studies, such as Andrew Wakefield’s debunked 1998 paper falsely linking vaccines to autism, have fueled lasting misinformation. But while these failures are serious, they do not invalidate the entire scientific enterprise. Instead, they reinforce why transparency, accountability, and rigorous peer review are critical to maintaining integrity in research.
The scientific community actively works to strengthen safeguards against bias and fraud through stricter disclosure requirements, replication studies, and independent review panels. Rather than eroding trust in all research due to isolated misconduct, we should push for stronger oversight, better methodologies, and increased funding for independent verification of results. The reality is that science has produced countless breakthroughs that have saved and improved lives, from MRI technology and cancer immunotherapies to vaccine development and global efforts to eradicate diseases like polio and malaria. Despite its imperfections, science remains one of humanity’s most powerful tools for progress.
The Endgame: A World Without Trust in Expertise
The consequences of this manufactured distrust are clear: no research is considered legitimate.
Industry-funded science? Corrupt.
Government-funded science? Wasteful and corrupt.
Foundation-funded science? Part of the “woke” agenda and corrupt.
This is the point. By systematically dismantling trust in all sources of knowledge, certain conservative movements, corporate interests, and political figures have created an environment where expertise is meaningless, facts become subjective, and people are left to navigate a sea of disinformation.
But why? Because when people stop trusting science, they become easier to manipulate.
For politicians, discrediting experts and institutions allows them to sidestep accountability. If climate scientists are dismissed as politically motivated, then there’s no pressure to address climate change. If public health agencies are seen as corrupt, then leaders can downplay pandemics and reject industry regulations.
For corporations, sowing distrust in science protects profits. When people doubt independent research on environmental pollution, unsafe pharmaceuticals, or public health risks, industries that contribute to those problems can continue operating unchecked.
For media figures and influencers, eroding trust in expertise creates a loyal audience. When every institution is suspect, people turn to personalities who validate their beliefs, driving engagement, influence, and financial gain.
In that chaos, the loudest voices, which are the ones that confirm biases rather than challenge them, become the most powerful.
And this isn’t just about research funding. It’s about the deliberate dismantling of an informed society. The consequences will reach far beyond the walls of any university laboratory. Undermining trust in science doesn’t just hurt researchers; it weakens our ability to tackle global challenges, from curing diseases to addressing climate change to preparing for future public health crises. If scientific skepticism morphs into outright rejection of expertise, we risk a world where evidence no longer matters, and progress stalls in the face of ideology.
And that ideology will almost certainly not serve the people, but instead benefit those in power: politicians who evade accountability, corporations that prioritize profit over safety, and media figures who thrive on division and misinformation.
This is why the NIH’s cuts to indirect costs are so alarming. Beyond the immediate strain on university budgets, research programs, and lab infrastructure, these cuts are part of a broader effort to weaken scientific institutions, making research harder to conduct, easier to discredit, and more dependent on private industry. By systematically dismantling the support systems that sustain independent research, these cuts don’t just limit scientific progress, they erode trust in science itself.
When institutions struggle to function and expertise is undermined at every level, the public is left questioning whether any research can be believed at all. Importantly, this isn’t just a budget decision, it’s a calculated effort to dismantle evidence-based knowledge. And if we don’t recognize that now, the consequences will extend far beyond any laboratory, reshaping the way we understand truth and scientific progress for generations to come.