Yesterday, the US National Science Foundation (NSF), a key supporter of fundamental academic research, announced the reactivation of a platform that allocates research grant funds to scientists. This development follows a week of disruption and dismay among researchers relying on NSF funding. During this period, the NSF halted disbursements, including those for postdoctoral fellowships, as part of an extensive review of grants totaling billions of dollars. This action was in response to President Donald Trump’s orders to eliminate funding for initiatives focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and to remove these terms from all federal materials.

Even though a federal judge has now blocked the government from withholding grant funds, leading to their release, the NSF has indicated it will persist with its review.

Julia Barnes, a cultural anthropologist funded by the NSF at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, expressed that these events underscore the instability faced by scientists in the US. “NSF researchers may not receive substantial pay, but our commitment to our research is profound,” she remarked.

Supporting Science Journalism

If you appreciate this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. Your subscription helps secure the future of in-depth stories that shape our understanding of scientific developments and innovations.

To gain insights into the internal workings of the NSF and potential future implications, Nature spoke confidentially with six NSF employees. They voiced significant concerns about the recent decisions to freeze funding.

One NSF staffer described the funding suspension as “utterly baffling to everyone involved.”

A spokesperson for the NSF declined to comment on these actions but directed Nature to the NSF website for details about the implementation of Trump’s executive orders.

A Turbulent Week

Trump began his presidency by signing a series of executive orders aimed at redirecting US policies on various fronts including climate science and public health. A subsequent memo from his administration, issued a week later, initially froze all federal grants. This freeze was almost immediately challenged in court and temporarily blocked just minutes before it was set to commence. Although the White House rescinded the memo following the judicial intervention, its commitment to enforcing Trump’s funding directives remains, as stated by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on the social media platform X.

In response, the NSF suspended its funding and canceled a week’s worth of grant review sessions. Legal challenges to the freeze came swiftly, with 22 states and the District of Columbia filing lawsuits. Two federal judges have since issued temporary injunctions against the freeze, suggesting it may exceed legal boundaries.

While it is unclear how long these judicial holds will last, NSF could face legal difficulties in terminating grants since their funding is sanctioned by the US Congress.

Moreover, since 1980, Congress has required the NSF to enhance participation from underrepresented groups in STEM fields. “These orders are not lawful,” stated an NSF employee, pointing to potential legal conflicts with the foundational statutes of the NSF.

The NSF spokesperson did not address inquiries about the potential legal contradictions of Trump’s orders with NSF’s mandated duties.

Exploring Grant Review Processes

Details on how the NSF is continuing its review of research grants remain largely undisclosed. However, NSF employees provided Nature with documents outlining the process. About 10,000 grants are under scrutiny, with each being independently reviewed by two staff members from different scientific divisions. They must report any potential violations of Trump’s directives by today.

The criteria for flagging grants include terms related to broadening participation, foreign aid, climate science, domestic energy, and programs deemed discriminatory, including those involving illegal DEI practices.

“To repeatedly see terms like ‘women’, ‘woman’, and ‘people of color’ marked on a spreadsheet is deeply unsettling,” shared an NSF staff member.

Decisions on flagged grants—whether to cancel, archive, or modify them—must be finalized by February 7. A small team will review any amendments before they are submitted for final approval.

Disruptions in Science

The recent funding uncertainty has left many NSF-supported scientists unsure about the continuation of their research and the reliability of their funding. Jasmin Graham, a marine biologist and co-founder of the advocacy group Minorities in Shark Sciences, noted that a significant portion of their budget is still frozen, prompting them to seek alternative funding sources.

Last week, over 100 postdoctoral fellows were temporarily unable to access their salaries due to the suspension of the payment system, raising concerns about their financial stability. Although the system is now operational, uncertainties about future reviews linger.

NSF has not provided clear communication on how it is assessing grants, leaving researchers like Barnes worried about the potential for any project to be targeted. “Our obligation as NSF-funded scientists is to design projects with the broadest possible impact,” Barnes emphasized.

Despite concerns, some see a silver lining. Suzanne Barbour, a biochemist at Duke University and chair of a panel advising the NSF, hopes this situation fosters greater investment in STEM education and inclusivity.

Others, like Wei Yang Tham, an economist studying grant impacts, worry about the long-term effects on early-career researchers, for whom grants are crucial not only for knowledge generation but also for professional training.

This article is a reproduction with permission and was originally published on February 3, 2025.