What’s New
The Trump administration on Wednesday rescinded a memo ordering a federal-funding freeze after two days of widespread confusion across higher education and other sectors.
The freeze, outlined in a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), had been temporarily blocked by a court injunction on Tuesday. A White House spokesperson posted Wednesday on X that President Trump’s executive orders on how federal funding should be used “remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.” One such order said money should not be used to support diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.
The funding-pause directive, which did not apply to student financial aid, was particularly troublesome for scientists and other researchers, who rely on billions of dollars in federal grants to fund research projects, salaries, and equipment.
The Details
The Trump administration froze grants late Monday so it could purge projects that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, among other progressive policies, according to the now-rescinded OMB memo. It threw into chaos researchers who were unclear on whether their efforts would move forward.
Shortly after the memo went out, the National Science Foundation, which provides funding for more than 350,000 researchers at more than 1,800 colleges, began sending emails to researchers with active grants stating that their funding was paused. Adding to the confusion, emails with the same wording continued to go out Wednesday morning, despite the court injunction blocking the freeze.
After the White House’s rescission of the memo on Wednesday, the NSF said it was committed to reopening access to funds.
“Our top priority is resuming our funding actions and services to the research community and our stakeholders,” an NSF spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. The organization is “working expeditiously” to review projects and comply with executive orders, the spokesperson added.
Several researchers who rely on NSF funding say the confusion continues.
“It makes us unable to reliably make decisions,” said Jennifer Golbeck, a professor of information studies at the University of Maryland at College Park whose research is funded by an NSF grant. “Not just the research that we’re going to do, but like, how are we going to staff that? What are our programs going to look like?”
Researchers had already been affected by decisions last week from the NSF and National Institutes of Health to temporarily suspend review panels — which allow officials to discuss new projects and award money — until at least February 1.
The Backdrop
Trump has had a busy first nine days in office, signing more than 70 executive orders, memos, and proclamations.
The funding freeze, designed to carry out one of Trump’s first executive orders, was meant to align spending with Trump’s goals and “provide the administration time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of the funding for those programs,” the memo said.
Trump has promised in an executive order to eliminate government spending on “woke” ideologies, including “radical and wasteful” diversity initiatives and “environmental justice” offices.
What to Watch For
For now, federal grant funding appears to be unfrozen. But its future remains uncertain.
The disruption caused by the freeze has changed higher education’s relationship with the Trump administration, Golbeck said.
“It’s sort of like the federal version of an abusive relationship,” she said. “Your partner hits you one time, and then they’re very sorry and they promise it’ll never happen again. But like, is it going to happen again?”
Celia Chen, a doctoral student who works with Golbeck at Maryland, said the freeze had been an “emotional roller coaster.” The salaries of Ph.D. students like her often rely entirely on grant funding.
Chen plans to finish her degree nearly two years early to avoid future threats to her grant — though she believes her topic should be “safe” from government cuts.
“It still doesn’t even put me at ease,” Chen said of the withdrawal of the OMB memo, “because it feels like they’re just going to try to attack the sciences and the funding for sciences from a different angle.”
