There’s been no summer break in the Trump administration’s relentless campaign against science. If you’ve been following along with my blog posts, you’re no stranger to the shocking numbers of attacks that occur each month.
While the numbers I share here are not inclusive of every single possible attack, they are part of a now well-established pattern of behavior in the administration: sidelining, ignoring, or willfully undermining science in their decisions and policies.
These attacks follow the plan laid out in Project 2025, whose authors inside and outside of government have seen 47% of their proposals implemented in just the first eight months of the second Trump presidency. These decisions and policies have clear and tangible negative impacts on real people, our communities, and our planet.
Between January 20th and August 31st 2025, there have been 479 attacks on science. These are 479 actions, decisions, or policies that undermine, co-opt, or blatantly ignore science in the federal government.
It’s understandable if seeing this number is discouraging, but there are wins happening for federal science too. As I did in my last round-up, I’ll start by sharing a win for federal science (I always like to start with the good news). Before sharing some resources for how to get more involved in the fight to defend federal science, I’ll go into more detail on some of the attacks we tracked in August and why they matter for you and your community.
So, good news first.
Taking it to the Hill
At the end of July, the Center for Science and Democracy, along with one of our organizational partners, EarthJustice Action, facilitated meetings between experts from across the country (including members of UCS’ Science Network) and staffers from Congress members’ offices. These 18 different experts spoke to staffers about the importance of scientific integrity, the Integrated Risk Information System program (housed in the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. These experts stressed the importance of federal science and why it needs to be protected.
Over the course of two days, our team of facilitators and scientists met with 30 different Congressional offices, including Republican and Democratic members. This “Hill Day” allowed direct conversations between members of Congress and their constituents, who were able to give very tangible examples of why federal science is so important for people and the planet. By putting a human face on the outcomes of federally-supported research, constituents helped legislators see the direct connection between policy decisions and everyday lives.
This event sparked more conversations with decision makers, more research to illustrate the importance of federal science, and more organizing with experts and UCS supporters from across the country. If you’re interested in becoming more involved in this type of advocacy, like future Hill Days, keep an eye on our Action Center that’s regularly updated with more events and ways to get involved, as well as our Scientific Integrity action page. And if you’re an expert in your respective field, whether you’re in the natural or social sciences, become a member of our Science Network!
Scientists speak up despite risk of retaliation
Despite these productive conversations between experts and members of Congress, the attacks on science have unfortunately continued in the executive branch. More than 30 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees were put on administrative leave out of the 180 who signed an open letter of dissent expressing concern about the agency’s direction and leadership. A similar series of events has unfolded at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where over 100 federal workers and scientists were put on administrative leave for speaking out against the administration’s anti-science actions and decisions.
These public letters outlined concerns about EPA and FEMA’s actions since the inauguration, underscoring that these actions have impeded their abilities to achieve their agencies’ core missions.The letters’ authors were experts in their respective fields who spoke up for scientific evidence, voiced concerns about communities overburdened by pollution and natural disasters, and advocated for their colleagues facing a climate of chaos and fear at work. EPA and FEMA have historically housed experts in environmental hazards and disasters, chemical regulation, the public health effects of climate change, and more.
Instead of listening to their employees’ concerns and creating an open dialogue about how to best serve the public they work for, agency political leaders placed these experts on administrative leave and subjected them to investigations. As of this writing, some EPA workers have been fired for their involvement, while many others are still on administrative leave while being investigated for this purported misconduct, meaning they have not been able to do their jobs for weeks. These actions are prime examples of political retaliation.
Other agencies have also courageously spoken up for prioritizing science and preventing politicization of their work. The EPA and FEMA letters were preceded by the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) “Bethesda Declaration,” signed by almost 500 NIH workers and scientists. So far, staff from two other agencies have advocated for the same in their own letters. Almost 300 workers from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) signed their names to the “Voyager Declaration,” while 149 staffers from the National Science Foundation submitted protected whistleblower disclosures to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Cal.), ranking member of the U.S. House’s Science, Space and Technology Committee. To date, only EPA and FEMA staffers have been publicly retaliated against for their letter.
Politicizing science
Another concerning line of attack: the administration has given political officials (as opposed to career scientists and staffers) unusual power over research and science policy. In August, President Trump signed another EO that, among other things, would give political appointees the power to personally approve or deny federal grant funding from agencies. As a result, we’ve already started to see the grant process at the National Institute of Health (NIH) change to give political officials more control over grant approvals.
If this sounds familiar, that’s because we’ve seen similar language in a May EO that directed federal agencies to place political officials in charge of overseeing science policy decisions and protecting science from politicization (which we’re starting to see play out). The administration is showing it values loyalty to the President and his agenda over agencies’ lawful missions or their responsibilities to serve the public.
Political leaders also dissolved EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) to create a new Office of Applied Sciences and Environmental Solutions within the office of the administrator. Instead of being housed in a separate office, core scientific research will now be directly overseen by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin or by political appointees in specific regulatory program offices.
Before this latest directive, grant applications and reviews at federal agencies were part of an established and predictable process that involved peer-review processes and career scientists with subject-matter expertise making the call on what receives grant funding or not. Although the EO doesn’t eliminate the peer-review process, it does say that political officials should have the final say in what receives funding and what doesn’t.
The EO also spells out specific characteristics of research and studies that should not receive federal grant funding. If you’ve been following the work my colleagues and I have done to track the administration’s actions and priorities, this list won’t be surprising: according to this EO, grants won’t be allowed to fund studies or programs relevant to immigration, gender identity or expression, “racial preferences,” or anything that political appointees associate with “anti-American values.” This would, of course, depart from the missions (and related pre-existing grant review criteria) of many federal agencies. In other words, these politicized limitations would hinder federal agencies from funding the type of research that they have historically funded in the past—putting science at the whim of individual appointees’ subjective preferences.
After coming back into office, the Trump administration quickly got to work on cutting programs and research across the board—but they put a particular target on activities relating to environmental justice (the idea that all people should have equal access to a clean and safe environment, and the right to participate in government decision-making); diversity, equity, and inclusion; and LGBTQ+ health, especially for transgender people.
During the last eight months, the administration has experienced varying levels of success with its crusade. It’s written antagonistic executive orders, directed federal agencies to pause grant reviews and terminate grants, and gutted federally funded programs, among other things. Along the way, it’s encountered public backlash, run up against hundreds ofcourt orders and injunctions, and, importantly, faced some resistance from members of Congress.
Indeed, multiple Congressional budget proposals have effectively rejected President Trump’s desire to cut federal agency spending on scientific activities. This should, in theory, put some constraints on the administration’s efforts to slash the federal government’s future scientific capacity.
The recent EO is another way that the Trump administration is trying to continue to push its own agenda despite these setbacks—an agenda that is, we should note, largely unpopular. By rewriting the rules to put political officials in charge, the Trump administration is attempting to dictate what studies get funded, what topics get attention, and what programs can be allowed to run. This is not just a power grab-it is an attempt to make the politicization of federal research funding standard practice.
This can’t be allowed to stand. This action could set a precedent that important research that does not align with the administration’s agenda would be thrown to the wayside. Think about research that goes into cancer treatment clinical trials, making infrastructure more resilient to natural disasters, and preventing the next pandemic. The federal government could decide to not fund any of this critical research if it’s not framed in a way that appeases arbitrary political agendas. The health and safety of our loved ones, our neighbors, our communities, and our planet are at stake.
So what now?
I know it got a little bit dark there. It’s scary to read about these attacks and to connect the dots between how the Trump administration is parroting false support for science and the tangible, destructive policy outcomes they’re advancing. And unfortunately, their policy agenda benefits political, corporate, and ideological actors over everybody else. That’s why it’s more important than ever to stand up for science. There are still ways that we can fight back against these attacks on science and ensure that federal agencies’ scientific work can benefit all of us, not just the powerful and well-connected few.
- As you’ve heard me say before: ask your members of Congress to advocate for the Scientific Integrity Act. This law would codify protections for science and scientists into law, making it more difficult for any administration to undermine it. Click on this easy link to contact your member of Congress.
- Stay up to date on other SI related actions that we’re doing here at UCS, including learning how to become a Scientific Integrity Champion!