Van Hollen, Reed, Colleagues Demand Answers About Trump’s Efforts to Restrict & Undermine NSF-Funded Scientific Research

Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) joined with 23 colleagues in sounding the alarm over the Trump Administration injecting partisanship into scientific studies, obstructing critical research, potentially derailing the careers of promising American researchers, and attempting to undermine the U.S. scientific research ecosystem. With several major sources of federal research funding in limbo after chaotic directives from the Trump Administration, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has been forced to pause grant review panels, re-examine previously awarded research funding, and initiate the process for dismissing a significant portion of the agency’s workforce.

The Senators wrote to NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, “to express concern about funding delays and widespread confusion at universities and research organizations across the country, resulting from the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders.”  The lawmakers are demanding answers about actions that could damage advancements in scientific discovery and undermine NSF’s mission.

“In light of NSF’s congressionally mandated mission, we are deeply concerned by recent reports that the Trump Administration’s memoranda and Executive Orders forced the NSF to pause all grant review panels, initiate a re-examination process for existing awards, and develop plans to dismiss a significant portion of the agency’s workforce within the next two months,” the 25 Senators wrote.

The NSF is an independent federal agency with a $9 billion fiscal year 2024 (FY24) budget that is the funding source for about a quarter of federally supported basic research conducted by U.S. colleges and universities in a variety of fields such as mathematics, biology, computer science, engineering, physics, and marine sciences.  NSF also helps cultivate the nation’s STEM workforce of the future by strengthening academic partnerships and research opportunities with colleges and universities across the country.

Earlier this month, NSF staff were forced to pause their regular work in order to examine whether any existing grants ran afoul of President Trump’s directive to halt programs aimed at addressing issues of diversity and historic systems of discrimination.

“We believe these actions are having a devastating impact on our universities and their ability to sustain robust research programs," the Senators continued.  “These pauses will also undermine NSF’s competitive, peer-reviewed research selection process, and could result in a corrupt research system based on ideology and party loyalty rather than independent, scientific inquiry and intellectual integrity.”

In FY24 alone, NSF awarded $57 million in federal funding to Rhode Island-based research projects. 

NSF-funded research has helped contribute to numerous, diverse areas of scientific development and discovery, including medical imaging, kidney matching, Doppler radar, geographic information systems (GIS), sign language, and 3D printing.

In addition to Senators Van Hollen and Reed, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

The Senators demanded written responses to the following questions no later than February 13, 2025: 

1. Have agents of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency established a presence at NSF?  If so, what measures and directives have they established?  What access to NSF’s computer systems do they have?  Do they have sufficient clearances and background checks?

2. How much research funding has been placed on hold?

3. How many grant review panels has NSF canceled? 

4. Will all grant review panels be rescheduled?  If so, for when?

5. Will delays in grant approvals impact faculty and students who depend on NSF grants for financial support?

6. Is it standard practice for NSF to re-examine existing awards once a new administration takes office?

7. How many existing awards is NSF re-examining?

8. Will NSF terminate any existing awards?

9. Is NSF planning to dismiss “between a quarter and a half of its staff in the next two months,” as reported by E&E News? If so, what authorities enable the NSF to take this action? 

10. How would NSF ensure that any reduction in force complies with the requirements of Division C, section 505 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118–42)?

11. How will these proposed layoffs comply with the agency’s union agreements?

Full text of the letter follows:

Dear Director Panchanathan:

We write to express concern about funding delays and widespread confusion at universities and research organizations across the country, resulting from the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders. 

In 1950, Congress established the National Science Foundation (NSF) as an independent federal agency to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.”  Since then, the NSF has served as a critical facilitator and funding source for U.S. research at universities, and has contributed to countless modern advancements – from medical imaging and kidney matching, to Doppler radar and geographic information systems (GIS), to sign language and 3D printing.  NSF’s achievements have relied on its longstanding, merit-based, independent approach to advancing scientific discovery. 

In light of NSF’s congressionally mandated mission, we are deeply concerned by recent reports that the Trump Administration’s memoranda and Executive Orders forced the NSF to pause all grant review panels, initiate a re-examination process for existing awards, and develop plans to dismiss a significant portion of the agency’s workforce within the next two months.  We believe these actions are having a devastating impact on our universities and their ability to sustain robust research programs.  These pauses will also undermine NSF’s competitive, peer-reviewed research selection process, and could result in a corrupt research system based on ideology and party loyalty rather than independent, scientific inquiry and intellectual integrity.

Given the severity of this threat, we request that you provide written answers to the following questions by February 13, 2025:

1. Have agents of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency established a presence at NSF?  If so, what measures and directives have they established?  What access to NSF’s computer systems do they have?  Do they have sufficient clearances and background checks?
2. How much research funding has been placed on hold?
3. How many grant review panels has NSF canceled? 
4. Will all grant review panels be rescheduled?  If so, for when?
5. Will delays in grant approvals impact faculty and students who depend on NSF grants for financial support?
6. Is it standard practice for NSF to re-examine existing awards once a new administration takes office?
7. How many existing awards is NSF re-examining?
8. Will NSF terminate any existing awards?
9. Is NSF planning to dismiss “between a quarter and a half of its staff in the next two months,” as reported by E&E News? If so, what authorities enable the NSF to take this action?
10. How would NSF ensure that any reduction in force complies with the requirements of Division C, section 505 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118–42)?
11. How will these proposed layoffs comply with the agency’s union agreements?

We appreciate your attention and prompt response to this important matter.

Sincerely,