So can someone please explain the IMPACT this will have on T-100 colleges and universities in the short-term (2025-2030)?

Assuming a sharp and massive decrease in federal funding per Musk/Project 2025:

- What will change on the ground at these schools in the next year, in the next five years? How exactly will it affect applicants and undergraduate students?

- Which schools (or types of schools) are likely to be the relative “winners,” and who are likely to be the relative “losers”?

(Assume I have no personal experience with either federally-funded research or college/university budgets. Because I don’t. 😂 But I do have kids applying to college in 2026 and 2029 and am having trouble getting my head around the short-term implications for them.

Thanks!

Getting this back on track, not only are universities going to lose a boatload of money for labs, equipment, etc., there are also salaries paid out of grants, usually a month or two of the professor's annual pay, plus assistants, etc.

There is going to be a lot of pain at a lot of universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stem Cell research (critical) and biological sciences will go backwards.

I’m a molecular biologist. Republicans are terrible for the advancement of science.

The problem the left faces is that much of the funding wasn't for the advancement of science...

Says you and anti vaccine anti mask crazies.

Anonymous wrote:Once NIH and DHS grant funding resumes it's safe to say that social science research will not be funded at the same level as the hard sciences.

So those schools with a STEM focus on research...MIT, CalTech, Harvey Mudd, CMU, Northeastern, Georgia Tech, VaTech should come out better.

There is going to be a lot of pain and budget issues at a variety of the less tech heavy departments.

For example, for NIH funding, some $8.5 billion was used in 2024 to fund Behavioral and Social Science grants. This was about the same as Biotechnology, $8.5 billion.

There is going to be a lot of pain in certain departments.

It is safe to say hard science will not be funded. All of that is gone, Trump, republicans and maga hate all science. Biotechnology lol. They are anti vaccine(mRNA, subunit, recombinant, polysaccharide, and conjugate), anti climate change, anti GMO, any stem cell research, etc.

You seem very naive and do not understand what Trump is all about. It is about dismantling the government and defunding everything. This is 50 years of anti government propaganda.

Anonymous wrote:Stem Cell research (critical) and biological sciences will go backwards.

I’m a molecular biologist. Republicans are terrible for the advancement of science.

The problem the left faces is that much of the funding wasn't for the advancement of science...

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand this. My understanding from NIH is that this would flag 100% of proposals because under current federal law all proposals must include a section explaining whether or why not the research would cover both sexes and all races. (So if you’re studying prostrate cancer okay to have all male subjects but if you’re studying brain cancer you’d have to have a reason why you only wanted to study men). Isn’t NSF similar? This is like designing a key word search that uses the word “and”.

Correct. The (intended) result is to flag all research as problematic. This is why it's so silly to claim that "hard" science research will be spared.

Stem Cell research (critical) and biological sciences will go backwards.

I’m a molecular biologist. Republicans are terrible for the advancement of science.

STEM research is going to be encouraged.

Make no mistake, universities are dependent on federal research dollars.

University of Virginia's has a high percentage of soft science research.

If people think USAID was cataclysmic, wait until NIH grants are awarded under the new administration.

I know that those who put in applications for being on peer review committees are being told that their applications aren't even going to be looked at.

STEM focused schools will be less damaged.

My sibling is a STEM researcher and no, things are not going okay for them.

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why you think STEM research will be spared. The issue isn’t social sciences research—it’s research, period. The list of “forbidden words” includes things like “female” and “inclusion,” words that are used in many contexts and types of research.

A lot of you are not seeing the forest for the trees, here. This is about destroying state capacity, and it’s about eliminating any threats to or competition for Elon Musk’s empire. They are using a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.

Kennedy said he wants to “pause” infectious disease research for four years.

With Avian Flu spreading rapidly!

I don’t understand this. My understanding from NIH is that this would flag 100% of proposals because under current federal law all proposals must include a section explaining whether or why not the research would cover both sexes and all races. (So if you’re studying prostrate cancer okay to have all male subjects but if you’re studying brain cancer you’d have to have a reason why you only wanted to study men). Isn’t NSF similar? This is like designing a key word search that uses the word “and”.

^^^In case you don’t believe me, check out the list of words NSF is using to flag suspicious research:

https://gizmodo.com/the-list-of-trumps-forbidden-words-that-will-get-your-paper-flagged-at-nsf-2000559661

A few highlights: status, women, systemic, diversify, barrier, excluded

Not sure why you think STEM research will be spared. The issue isn’t social sciences research—it’s research, period. The list of “forbidden words” includes things like “female” and “inclusion,” words that are used in many contexts and types of research.

A lot of you are not seeing the forest for the trees, here. This is about destroying state capacity, and it’s about eliminating any threats to or competition for Elon Musk’s empire. They are using a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.

University of Michigan:

The University of Michigan recently earned the top spot for the second year in a row in the Consortium of Social Science Associations’ 2023 College & University Rankings, which decides how much federal funding is allocated to universities that conduct social and behavioral science research and development.

Once NIH and DHS grant funding resumes it's safe to say that social science research will not be funded at the same level as the hard sciences.

So those schools with a STEM focus on research...MIT, CalTech, Harvey Mudd, CMU, Northeastern, Georgia Tech, VaTech should come out better.

There is going to be a lot of pain and budget issues at a variety of the less tech heavy departments.

For example, for NIH funding, some $8.5 billion was used in 2024 to fund Behavioral and Social Science grants. This was about the same as Biotechnology, $8.5 billion.

There is going to be a lot of pain in certain departments.