When Columbia University struck a $200 million settlement with the Trump administration last month, it bought back the promise of stability for its world-class research enterprise. The agreement restored hundreds of millions in frozen federal grants that had been abruptly cut earlier this year, but for many scientists on campus, the deal feels less like a victory and more like a reprieve in an increasingly hostile funding climate.
Politically sensitive research left behind
While Columbia’s laboratories are breathing again, some areas of inquiry remain shut out. The New York Times reported that grants in politically sensitive fields, including transgender health, are still blocked, leaving parts of the university’s medical center and School of Public Health in austerity mode. Hiring freezes, reduced slots for doctoral students, and months of operating on emergency bridge funding have already left a mark.
National outlook: Cuts and executive orders
The broader national picture is even bleaker. On August 7, President Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring that federal scientific grants undergo additional review to ensure they align with “agency priorities and the national interest.” The administration has also proposed a 40% cut to the National Institutes of Health, though Congress has resisted. For researchers who spoke to The New York Times, Columbia’s deal may have saved their projects in the short run, but it does little to shield American science from shifting political winds.“The effects, unfortunately, for research and the research community will be long-lasting and detrimental,” Dr. Anthony Ferrante Jr., a Columbia obesity researcher, told The New York Times. He noted that interest from foreign postdoctoral candidates, once a steady flow of inquiries to his lab, had “dwindled to a trickle.”
A test case for other elite universities
Columbia is the first university to cut such a deal, and other elite campuses like Harvard are now weighing similar moves. Some Nobel laureates at Columbia told The New York Times they were relieved the settlement kept labs afloat. Others accused the university of caving to political extortion.Joachim Frank, a Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist, said the university should have fought the administration in court rather than negotiating. He warned that Washington’s tactics resembled efforts in Hungary and Turkey to exert control over universities. “From my background as a German, I have already seen what is happening from Day 1,” Frank told The New York Times. “There has been too much complacency.”
Pragmatism vs outrage
Other faculty struck a more pragmatic note. Barry Honig, who directs Columbia’s Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, told The New York Times that while the settlement was “not too onerous,” his main concern had been preventing the collapse of ongoing research. Nobel neuroscientist Richard Axel added that while he was grateful for the university’s financial support during the freeze, “there is an air of uncertainty and concern moving forward.”
A disrupted pipeline of young scientists
That uncertainty has already reshaped the pipeline of young scientists. Columbia University has cut back on doctoral admissions, postdoctoral hires have declined, and some landmark studies, including a $80 million diabetes project run out of Columbia, were temporarily suspended until the deal was signed.For now, Columbia’s $200 million payout has resuscitated much of its research. But as one Harvard scientist involved in the diabetes study told The New York Times, the feeling is less relief than recovery: “We’ve been resuscitated and now we are in rehab.”The message, Columbia researchers say, is clear: The future of American science may depend less on discovery and more on politics.TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here.
