Right-wing purity could cripple America's university research

Nation's scientific and technological lead is in the crosshairs.

When ideology takes top priority, America’s world leadership is in jeopardy.

The Trump administration’s threats to academic freedom at leading American universities could slow the pace of the nation’s scientific research and subsequent entrepreneurial development of what that research turns up. Our race to stay ahead of China, for instance, is likely to be hamstrung by federal devotion to right-wing “purity,” something that should disturb Americans of every political stripe.

Trump has resorted to threatened and actual grant cutbacks in his effort to wipe out diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) practices, as well as supposed “woke” ideology (whatever that is), at a number of leading institutions of higher education.

One example, out of many dozens: the administration has frozen $175 million in grant money at the University of Pennsylvania—Trump’s alma mater—because the university allowed a transgender female on its women’s swimming team three years ago.

As of late July, the feds had proposed slashing federal funds for all university research in fiscal year 2025-26 by 22 percent, and for basic research by 34 percent. Cultural issues were used as a reason for a significant number of those reductions. A huge chunk of American research takes place in colleges and universities, and we would be in a sorry state without it.

Want a few examples? Check these out:

—Pap smear, Cornell University, 1939.

—Blood preservation, Columbia University, 1940 (allowed stored blood to be used for World War Two transfusions).

—Streptomycin, Rutgers University, 1943 (antibiotic against TB).

—Heart-lung machine, 1955, pacemaker, 1958, and seat belt, 1963, all University of Minnesota.

—LCD displays, Kent State University, 1967.

—Hepatitis B vaccine, University of Pennsylvania, 1969.

—MRI scanner and related technology, State University of New York, 1970s.

—Kennel cough vaccine, Iowa State University, 1970s.

—Recombinant DNA technology, Stanford University and University of California - San Francisco, 1974.

—Cisplatin, Michigan State University, 1977 (one of the post-cancer chemicals I took in 2011-12), 1977.

—Canine parvovirus vaccine, Cornell University, 1979.

—LASER cataract surgery, University of California - Los Angeles, 1988.

—Combination PET/CT scanner, University of Pittsburgh, 2000.

These all reside in the health category. There are many, many more in other areas, such as defense, industrial technology, agriculture—the list goes on.

Bringing it closer to home, Iowa State University received just $24.5 million in U.S. Department of Agriculture funding in fiscal year 2024-25, the lowest amount in five years and less than half the amount of ag funding that it received in fiscal 2023-24.

To be clear: there’s no indication that those cuts resulted from federal displeasure with anything related to Iowa State’s cultural or ideological orientation, whatever that might be. But Iowa State and the University of Iowa, as research institutions, are under the same federal scrutiny as their sister institutions across the nation.

It just doesn’t make sense to jeopardize America’s research leadership at the academic level because federal right-wingers decide a university’s practices “don’t square with the President’s priorities,” to quote the standard phrase.

John King Jr., former Secretary of Education under President Obama and current Chancellor of the State University of New York system, said it best:
“From the technology inside of your phone to the treatment you may receive at your doctor—all of that can be traced back to research conducted at America’s higher ed institutions. And it’s under threat.”