Trump's new executive order threatens US scientific freedom – DW – 08/11/2025
The US position as a global leader in science has long hinged on its research freedom and independence from political interference. A new executive order signed by US President Donald Trump on August 7 now threatens to overturn this paradigm.
The executive order, titled "", grants political appointees sweeping authority over all federal grant funding.
If implemented, political appointees — not scientists — would take control over decisions about research grants. It would, among other changes, allow political appointees to overrule advice from scientists on award decisions, and let them terminate ongoing grants based on political criteria.
Scientists and research advocates have slammed the executive order, saying it enhances Trump's control over scientific research and universities. They warn it will replace scientific merit with ideological loyalty to the Trump administration.
Victor Ambros, who won the 2024 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of microRNA, called the order "unpatriotic in the extreme."
"[The order is] a shameless, full-bore Soviet-style politicization of American science that will smother what until now has been the world's preeminent scientific enterprise. Until this administration, the single overarching priority for public funding of research has been scientific excellence. That is why our country has been so successful in delivering life-saving and life-enriching discoveries," Ambros said in a statement.
In the last decade, the US Congress awarded ~$200 billion (€172 billion) in research grants annually to advance critical research on diseases, new technologies like AI and life-saving medicines.
US-based researchers have applied for research grants from federal science agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Whether scientists are awarded grants they've applied for depends on independent peer review. Panels of experts evaluate research proposals based on evidence, methodology and potential impact.
The August 7 executive order changes that. Peer review from scientific experts is now only advisory — final grant-making decisions have been placed in the hands of political appointees. Those appointees can refuse to fund new grants that don't align with Donald Trump's political agenda.
"[Funding] awards must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President's policy priorities," the paper states.
The order cites critical race theory, transgender sexual education programs and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) research as "far-left initiatives" that are an "offensive waste of tax dollars."
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
This executive order is the latest attack on scientific research and US universities by the Trump administration.
"Much of this executive order is predicated on misinformation," Jeremy Berg, a former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH and member of Stand Up For Science's advisory board, said in a statement.
Trump froze all US federal science funding in February, then again in July, and has cut top science roles at NASA.
Funding has also been cut in climate science , gender-related topics and research on potentially life-saving mRNA vaccine technologies.
Kenneth Evans, an expert in science and technology public policy at Rice University in Texas told DW in February that the Trump administration has made the US "a hostile place for researchers."
Medical associations warn that the President's ongoing assault on science is derailing the US' reputation as a scientific powerhouse and crippling vital research.
"Grant review by political appointees will further impede the work of the scientific community to provide solutions and fight public health threats," said American Society for Microbiology CEO Stefano Bertuzzi.
"With strong and responsible oversight, we need to harness — not suppress — all perspectives and approaches in the effort to solve these problems," said Bertuzzi in a statement.
Given that the executive order faces such strong criticism, it will almost certainly also face legal challenges. Opponents are likely to argue that the order violates safeguards designed to keep scientific research free from political oversight.
Science advocates are hoping Congress will act to block or modify its provisions, much like it did to protect the NIH's federal budget in August.To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
2 hours ago
- DW
US accuses Germany of 'human rights issues' in new report – DW – 08/13/2025
The report itself has been accused of political bias, with the Trump administration softening criticism of Israel and El Salvador. Human rights, such as freedom of expression, are under threat in Germany and other European countries, according to the 2024 Human Rights Report by the US State Department. The report, which in former years has been seen as a reliable point of reference for global human rights advocacy, has been criticized by human rights groups as containing numerous omissions and mischaracterizations to fit the current US administration's political aims. "The human rights situation in Germany worsened during the year," an executive summary of the report's Germany entry said. "Significant human rights issues included restrictions on freedom of expression and credible reports of crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism," the report said. The report stated, however, that the German government "took some credible steps to investigate, prosecute, and punish officials who committed human rights abuses." The report follows on from comments made by US Vice President JD Vance in February, in which he accused Germany and other European allies of imposing restrictions on free speech and attempting to marginalize far-right parties, including the Alternative for Germany (AfD). His remarks have been described as "intrusive" by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The report devotes a much smaller section to Israel than it did last year and fails to mention the severe humanitarian crisis and death toll in the Gaza Strip amid Israel's ongoing offensive against the Palestininian militant group Hamas. El Salvador, which was described in the 2023 report under the Biden administration as having "significant human rights issues," also got off lightly in 2024. "There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses," the 2024 report said about the Central American country, whose president, Nayib Bukele, is accused of overseeing unlawful and arbitrary killings, torture and harsh prison conditions. The Trump administration's relations with El Salvador have strengthened in recent months, with Washington using a high-security mega-prison in the country to house migrants it has deported under draconian new migration policies. Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine was referred to in the report mainly as the "Russia-Ukraine war," though it did say Russia's forces and officials were reported to have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and abuses in Ukraine. In contrast, countries such as South Africa and Brazil, with whose governments Trump has clashed, came in for severe criticism that was not contained in the 2023 report. The report was issued with a delay as officials appointed by US President Donald Trump altered an earlier draft to bring it into line with his administration's foreign policies and ideological slant. It was prepared after the department underwent a major revamp during which hundreds of people were dismissed, many from the agency's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which has a large role in writing the report. In April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in an opinion piece that the bureau had become a nest of "left-wing activists" and pledged that the Trump administration would change its focus in favor of "Western values." "The report demonstrates what happens when political agendas take priority over the facts," said Josh Paul, a former State Department official and director of nongovernmental organization A New Policy. "The outcome is a much-abbreviated product that is more reflective of a Soviet propaganda release than of a democratic system," he told Reuters news agency. Rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also criticized the report, saying the Trump administration had mischaracterized some records of abuses and omitted others to suit its political agenda. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, however, defended the report, saying it had been restructured to improve readability and to stop it from being a list of "politically biased demands and assertions."
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
Human rights worsening in Germany — US report – DW – 08/13/2025
Freedom of expression is in danger in Germany, according to a report by the US State Department. While it gave bad marks to several European countries, it softened criticism of countries such as Israel and El Salvador. Human rights, such as freedom of expression, are under threat in Germany and other European countries, according to the 2024 Human Rights Report by the US State Department. The report, which in former years has been seen as a reliable point of reference for global human rights advocacy, has been criticized by human rights groups as containing numerous omissions and mischaracterizations to fit the current US administration's political aims. "The human rights situation in Germany worsened during the year," an executive summary of the report's Germany entry said. "Significant human rights issues included restrictions on freedom of expression and credible reports of crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism," the report said. The report stated, however, that the German government "took some credible steps to investigate, prosecute, and punish officials who committed human rights abuses." The report follows on from comments made by US Vice President JD Vance in February, in which he accused Germany and other European allies of imposing restrictions on free speech and attempting to marginalize far-right parties, including the Alternative for Germany (AfD). His remarks have been described as "intrusive" by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The report devotes a much smaller section to Israel than it did last year and fails to mention the severe humanitarian crisis and death toll in the Gaza Strip amid Israel's ongoing offensive against the Palestininian militant group Hamas. El Salvador, which was described in the 2023 report under the Biden administration as having "significant human rights issues," also got off lightly in 2024. "There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses," the 2024 report said about the Central American country, whose president, Nayib Bukele, is accused of overseeing unlawful and arbitrary killings, torture and harsh prison conditions. The Trump administration's relations with El Salvador have strengthened in recent months, with Washington using a high-security mega-prison in the country to house migrants it has deported under draconian new migration policies. Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine was referred to in the report mainly as the "Russia-Ukraine war," though it did say Russia's forces and officials were reported to have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and abuses in Ukraine. In contrast, countries such as South Africa and Brazil, with whose governments Trump has clashed, came in for severe criticism that was not contained in the 2023 report. The report was issued with a delay as officials appointed by US President Donald Trump altered an earlier draft to bring it into line with his administration's foreign policies and ideological slant. It was prepared after the department underwent a major revamp during which hundreds of people were dismissed, many from the agency's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which has a large role in writing the report. In April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in an opinion piece that the bureau had become a nest of "left-wing activists" and pledged that the Trump administration would change its focus in favor of "Western values." "The report demonstrates what happens when political agendas take priority over the facts," said Josh Paul, a former State Department official and director of nongovernmental organization A New Policy. "The outcome is a much-abbreviated product that is more reflective of a Soviet propaganda release than of a democratic system," he told Reuters news agency. Rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also criticized the report, saying the Trump administration had mischaracterized some records of abuses and omitted others to suit its political agenda. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, however, defended the report, saying it had been restructured to improve readability and to stop it from being a list of "politically biased demands and assertions."
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
What Russia gets out of Trump-Putin meeting on Ukraine – DW – 08/12/2025
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump will meet in Alaska to discuss the Ukraine war. How will the summit benefit Russia? Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump have agreed to meet in Alaska on August 15 to discuss the war in Ukraine. The meeting was announced shortly before Trump's ceasefire ultimatum was set to expire. Although experts doubt the summit will deliver any major breakthroughs, some factors could force Putin to agree to a ceasefire. The upcoming meeting is the first time both leaders are coming together since US President Trump's reelection. In mid-July, Trump said he was disappointed with Putin over Russia's bombing of the Ukrainian capital Kyiv but also said that he was "not done with him yet." The White House and Kremlin announced the meeting after US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff visited Putin in the Kremlin on August 6, though it is unclear what exactly will be discussed in Alaska. We do know that the talks will focus on Ukraine, but the country itself will not be represented at the meeting. Washington and Moscow are not planning for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to attend the summit. All experts DW interviewed about the upcoming summit expect it will primarily benefit the Russian president. "Putin has always been keen to ensure that he and the US president — whoever holds that office — decide the fate of the world, and that corresponding images are broadcast around the world," Russia's former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov told DW. Russian exiled opposition politician Dmitry Gudkov told DW the Alaska meeting would provide a unique opportunity for Putin to shake hands with one of the leaders of the West. "The mere fact that Putin has the chance to meet Trump is already a huge plus" for the Russian president, Gudkov said. "Trump is basically legitimizing a war criminal and allowing Putin to participate in negotiations with the West." If it weren't for Trump, Gudkov said, no Western leader would be negotiating with Putin. It became clear in late July that Trump was annoyed by Putin's unwillingness to end the fighting in Ukraine. Trump declared that he was no longer interested in talks with Putin and gave him an ultimatum of 50 days to find a peaceful solution to the Ukraine war, which he later shortened to just ten days. Experts told DW they believe that the realization that Trump is losing patience may have prompted the Kremlin to agree to the upcoming talks. Kirill Rogov, a political analyst who heads the Russian-language online media outlet which publishes analyses by Russian scientists, says a number of factors may compel Putin to seek an end to the Ukraine war. Rogov points to the weakened Russian economy, the sluggish advance of Russian forces in Ukraine and secondary US sanctions that could harm Russia. "Putin also hopes to extract the highest possible price for his approval at this moment. By the end of the year, Putin could be in an even worse position if it turns out that the Russian offensive has had little effect and the battlefield situation remains unchanged," Rogov said. Further US sanctions could also cause Russia to lose India as a buyer of its crude oil and force it to prepare for yet another offensive in Ukraine for the third year in a row. Last week US news outlet published a report citing anonymous sources indicating that the Kremlin had realized that Steve Witkoff's Russia visit represented the last opportunity to reach an agreement with Trump. said the Kremlin may now offer an airspace ceasefire by way of a concession. Gudkov, however, believes this approach, coordinated with the Trump administration, would primarily benefit Russia rather than Ukraine. Gudkov said Ukraine has carried out "effective" counterattacks against Russia, which resulted in the temporary closure of Russian airports on numerous occasions. He said Ukraine had also struck weapons depots, military equipment and oil refineries in Russia. This, he added, was important from a psychological point of view, making Russians understand the war is raging close to home, not far away, solely playing out on their televisions. "If these [Ukrainian] air strikes stop, Putin will calmly continue his advance on land, where he has the advantage," Gudkov told DW. Yet Russian President Putin may not face any serious consequences, even if both leaders fail to make any significant progress during the upcoming Alaska talks, says political analyst Rogov. "Putin can count on Trump to be lenient with him because Trump's attitude toward Putin has always been special," Rogov told DW. "Trump always avoids situations where direct pressure is exerted on Putin. And every time pressure seems inevitable, Trump declares that a new opportunity to reach an agreement has risen and therefore no real pressure is needed." He cites talks between Putin and Trump against the backdrop of the expired ceasefire ultimatum as one such example. Gudkov believes that there are no real means left to put pressure on Russia. For example, despite sanctions, hundreds of tankers continue to transport Russian oil across the world's oceans. Gudkov thinks a quick ceasefire is more likely to result from domestic factors that could put pressure on the Kremlin rather than external factors. The longer the war lasts, Gudkov says, the harder it will be for Putin to sell it as a Russian victory. "At some point, Russians won't care whether Ukraine is in NATO or how this war ends — they will only care about it ending," Gudkov said.
