Following President Trump’s inauguration, the flurry of executive orders and funding freezes introduced uncertainty into the period of political transition. Researchers and health practitioners across the country faced questions about the availability of funding for new graduate students and research fellows, as well as the broader impact on their fields in the coming years.
On Jan. 22, the Trump administration placed restrictions on the National Institute of Health’s activities, including cancelling all grant review panels, pausing public communications, instituting a hiring freeze and travel ban. Nearly two weeks after the decision, restrictions appear to be loosening.
On Monday Feb. 3, the NIH released a statement stating that the communications blackout is being lifted and travel by scientists for site visits and collaborative research is allowed; however, travel for scientific meetings or giving lectures is not permitted. On Tuesday Feb. 4, the NIH resumed study section panels to review grant applications.
However, restrictions are still in flux and federal agencies are still grappling with what is permitted and not under the new administration. According to Science, on Feb 4. scheduled meetings of three NIH advisory councils — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute on Drug Abuse; and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities — were all abruptly canceled.
A now-rescinded memo from the the Office of Management and Budget on Jan. 27 also required all federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to...disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” The memo led to the temporary pausing of all federal grants and loans, creating confusion. The memo was rescinded by the OMB on Jan. 29, following Judge AliKhan, a federal judge in D.C., temporarily blocking the freeze the day prior.
Additionally, on Feb. 3, Judge AliKhan issued a temporary restraining order regarding the freezing of federal grant funding and blocked the administration from carrying out the actions proposed in the original memo.
However, there is still confusion for many at Hopkins over how the Trump administration’s policies will impact the NIH and the University’s federal research. Several Hopkins students reported disruptions to their research and career opportunities, including losing student stipends for research and post-baccalaureate jobs at the NIH.
Dr. Steven Salzberg — a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor in Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science and Biostatistics — commented on the immediate concerns raised by the grants in an interview with The News-Letter before the freeze was temporarily paused.
Salzberg explained that the consequences of the order have been “uniformly harmful,” although he does not believe that the order was targeting research specifically. The biggest concern Salzberg described was for incoming graduate students or students applying for graduate programs, as the interview cycle was concluding just as the grant freeze began.
“I think a lot of people aren’t aware that the vast majority of Ph.D. students in the sciences are funded by federal grants,” Salzberg explained. “We are all struggling with what to do and I expect that if this freeze is not lifted very very soon — within days — then it will be too late to admit students in the fall.”
The Department of Education stated that the pause on federal funding did not affect federal direct student loans and Pell grants. The pause also did not impact federal financial aid programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, which includes the Federal Work-Study program.
In an email to The News-Letter, a university spokesperson described that the developments by the Trump administration led President Ronald J. Daniels to return early from a trip.
“President Daniels has been traveling with family in January and working remotely but given the developments with [Office of Management and Budget] OMB and our federal research program, he has cut the trip short,” they wrote on Jan. 29.
In an email to the Hopkins community on Feb. 3, President Daniels described how the executive orders and federal policy shifts may impact Universities and Hopkins specifically. Daniels began his email by describing the continued partnership between federal organizations and higher education, specifically highlighting the important and tangible impacts of the work done at universities.
Daniels then described the recent federal changes that have impacted research and work at Hopkins.
“In just the past two weeks, we have seen numerous executive orders, agency directives, and other federal actions that directly affect our university’s research mission,” he wrote. “These actions and communications signal changes in federal policy with regard to foreign aid, patient care, public health, diversity, gender, and immigration, and they coincide with unexpected pauses in grant payments from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), National Science Foundation (NSF), and National Institutes of Health (NIH).”
Daniels stated that the University closely monitoring the federal policy changes and considering the potential impact of these changes on University programs and work. Daniels acknowledged that the University has prepared financially for short-term changes to federal funding, and described that the University is committed to continuing its work while federal policies are in flux.
“Johns Hopkins has long positioned itself financially to weather short-term disruptions in federal funding, but we are also anticipating some longer-term curtailment of activities,” he wrote. “We will comply fully with any changes in federal laws and requirements, and we will continue to do our work and highlight its positive impact while we await clarity on those changes from the federal government and through the judicial review process.”
Though the Trump Administration rescinded the memo calling for a freeze on federal funds, the administration’s executive orders targeting federal spending in areas like diversity, equity and inclusion and artificial intelligence (AI) are still in effect.
Jim Bellingham, director of the Institute for Assured Autonomy, commented on these executive orders and their implications for AI research in an interview with The News-Letter. He also pointed to existing projects at Hopkins in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) that would be impacted by the executive order from the Trump administration withdrawing the U.S. from the WHO.
Bellingham emphasized that the executive orders presented larger uncertainties in how the next four years would play out for AI research and innovation.
“What you might expect to see given experience from the first administration is that things that would slow [AI innovation] down are killed. Some of those things might be what we care about a lot at the Institute of Assured Autonomy, like the issues that revolve around the fairness aspects of AI and the broader concerns of society,” Bellingham explained.
Bellingham also provided perspective on what the regulatory sphere of AI might look like and the importance of AI regulation for safety moving forward.
“I don’t believe self-regulation works,“ he argued. “If you want to create a controlled system, you need a feedback mechanism. Regulation is a key feedback loop in our system, and the other one is liability.”
Researchers at various institutions and fields throughout the University are considering the consequences of the Trump Administration’s policies. Due to the continual back-and-forth, the future is unclear.
Maya Britto contributed reporting to this article.
Editor’s Note: This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.
