University research helped American astronauts go to the moon, launched the atomic bomb, and created everything from the microwave and the internet to the billionaires of Silicon Valley.
Fast-forward to the present day. Universities have had billions in federal research money frozen or cut by the Trump administration. The White House has justified the cuts because of allegations of antisemitism on campus during protests over the war in Gaza or because transgender athletes were allowed to participate in sports.
Harvard University vowed to fight – and the White House immediately suspended $2.2 billion and threatened to cut another $1 billion. Harvard filed a lawsuit on Monday, citing the First Amendment and other federal laws around terminating federal financing. Columbia University acquiesced to the Trump administration’s demands, but so far its hundreds of millions of dollars in funding have yet to be restored.
Why We Wrote This
A story focused on
Since World War II, progress in the United States has been powered by the twin engines of university research and government dollars. The sudden untethering of the two is likely to have consequences for a generation of scientific advancement.
The oldest university in the United States is now leading a charge to protect not just research, but also the First Amendment, with other colleges and universities lining up behind it to defend their students’ right to learn without government interference. More than 150 college presidents signed a letter Tuesday saying they “speak with one voice.” It is the strongest sign yet that institutions of higher learning are banding together to protect what they see as “essential freedom” critical to learning.
“Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation,” they wrote. “Because of these freedoms, American institutions of higher learning are essential to American prosperity and serve as productive partners with government in promoting the common good.”
With some school endowments clocking in at billions of dollars, critics of higher learning have asked why universities even need government funding for scientific research. But that ignores the reality that since World War II, progress in the U.S. has been powered by the twin engines of university research and government dollars. The sudden untethering of the two is likely to have consequences for a generation of scientific advancement.
“I can’t predict what the White House is going to do, but I’d be happy to defend this position: If research funding is cut, that is going be a damaging thing for the country, and the reason is twofold,” says Tom Mitchell, a computer scientist, artificial intelligence researcher, and the founders university professor at Carnegie Mellon University.
Dr. Mitchell says U.S. universities historically lead the world in creating new ideas and scientific breakthroughs in many different fields.
“It’s one of the assets that the United States has that makes it such a powerful economy. That kind of research has fueled our economy for decades, and if we cut that research, there are significant economic consequences downstream,” he warns.
The second negative effect will manifest in cutting fellowships and training opportunities for the next generation of researchers.
At Harvard, 402 innovations were reported by the university’s researchers in fiscal year 2024, and 155 U.S. patents were issued to the school, according to harvard.edu, which has been revamped to highlight research contributions. More than 5,800 patents were held by the school as of July 1, 2024.
The lawsuit says that the government’s actions “threaten Harvard’s academic independence and place at risk critical lifesaving and pathbreaking research that occurs on its campus.” It goes on: “Today, Harvard’s federally funded research includes particular strengths in oncology, immunology, neuroscience, molecular biology, genomics, quantum science, and other areas of technology that support our national economy and defense.”
Elsewhere, entities like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest biomedical research funder, could have $20 billion cut from its 2026 budget. Several hundred colleges have had grants cut or frozen already, which has curtailed or stopped research that wasn’t finished. The National Science Foundation announced that it’s cutting half (1,000) of its fellowships for the Graduate Research Fellowship Program. That program fills the pipeline of future scientists, covering Ph.D. candidates’ tuition and giving them a $37,000 living stipend. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which also conducts university research, was fed “into the wood chipper,” according to Elon Musk of the Department of Government Efficiency.
Together, these funds represent tens of billions of dollars to fund research labs. These labs have created advancements in health, and have made products that have made businesses wealthy. In some cases, like Google, companies that used that research now have valuations in the trillions.
What are indirect costs, and why do they matter?
Dr. Mitchell is particularly concerned for the financial stability of colleges and universities if a specific provision that the Trump administration is pushing moves forward.
In addition to proposed cuts for 2026, which must be approved by Congress, the NIH would limit indirect cost caps to 15%, much lower than the average of 30% of a grant’s total. Indirect costs are things like managing facilities, paying utilities, and keeping buildings and labs up to date. A federal judge blocked this cut in March, but the Trump administration is appealing. Similarly, the administration wants to cut $400 million annually from the U.S. Department of Energy by setting indirect cost caps at 15%. This, too, would affect schools. A judge has temporarily blocked the administration from doing this. A decision is expected this spring.
“That’s the one thing that’s going to affect every university,” says Dr. Mitchell. “Every university that gets funding from NIH is going to be suddenly strapped, financially, strapped to pay the heating bills, to keep the library open, and those sorts of things,” he says.
Universities and professors also question whether the sweeping cuts are really aimed at reducing antisemitism on campus. One of the institutions suing the Trump administration over the NIH cuts is Brandeis University – named after the first Jewish Supreme Court justice and whose student body is 35% Jewish.
Startup culture fueled by university research
Although business incubators and accelerators have been around in the U.S. since the 1950s, they have gained more popularity in the tech boom of the last generation. An article in The Journal of Technology Transfer once found that startups that participated in university incubators created more jobs and sales than their private and nonprofit counterparts.
“The whole enterprise rested on a foundation of massive government investment during and after World War II, from space-age defense contracts to university research grants to public schools and roads and tax regimes,” wrote historian Margaret O’Mara in her book “The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America.”
Perhaps no school incubator/accelerator has been more successful than StartX, a Stanford-affiliated nonprofit for Stanford students and faculty. It has a valuation of more than $40 billion, and 165 companies valued at $100 million or more, including 18 valued at more than $1 billion, according to its website. It is a community for mentorship, education, grant funding, and support where founders don’t have to give up equity.
“Research is a foundational engine of scientific discovery and technological advancement wherever it happens. So it’s important that research continues where it happens and who funds it is a decision I think everyone has to make,” says StartX CEO Shannon McClenaghan. She uses AI as an example. Ms. McClenaghan says that the underpinnings of AI came from research, whether startups are in the commercialization phase, rolling out new products, or scaling industries.
“And a lot of that research obviously happens in a lot of places, including universities,” she adds.
Ms. McClenaghan says that she does not believe that research will come screeching to a halt or that talent will reconsider forming startups. Funding will come from somewhere. Research is too important and fuels economic growth, she says.
“Entrepreneurs are very innovative, and they find ways to get things done that other people can’t get done,” she says. “So how the research is funded is a problem that will get solved.”
Although he hopes Congress will step in to save funding, Dr. Mitchell sees things the same way, especially with AI. He thinks that it has gotten to a point where research done by industry can outpace any research coming from universities.
The government still thinks the technology is worth investing in. Bipartisan sponsorship of the Create AI Act was introduced to the House of Representatives in March. The bill would establish a National Science Foundation-backed program to be a national AI resource tool for academics, nonprofit organizations, and small businesses.
Dr. Mitchell hopes voters will tell Congress that research is important for the country’s economy and people’s quality of life.
“We want to continue to have the U.S. economy be the strongest economy in the world,” he says. “You don’t want the U.S. to become a second-rate player in science and technology. We will be surpassed by other countries if that happens.”
