Post by Dr. K. Lotterhos / Redsky

Respondents reported restrictions on free speech and travel, chilling effects on free speech and travel, censorship of scientific terms, concerns about the ability of the government to comply with legal mandates, reports of biased or removed information from federal sources, removal of climate.gov

Most respondents reported that federal policies caused uncertainty about the future (85% of respondents) and increased stress and anxiety (79%). Almost half of respondents reported being impacted by a chilling effect on free speech (48%), funding freezes (48%), cuts to the federal workforce (46%), and budget cuts (46%). About a third of respondents reported being affected by changes to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies (38%), hiring freezes (36%), cuts or threats of cuts to indirect costs (36%), concerns about human rights violations (35%). A proportion of respondents were affected by changes to international research and funding (25%), deletion of public data (21%), restrictions on research (20%), cancellations of solicitations (19%), cancellations of an awarded grant (17%), and cancellation of a training program or internship (14%). Threats to visa status were reported by 8% of respondents (117 respondents) and 1% of respondents reported visa revocation (18 respondents). A percentage of respondents reported no negative impact to them or their research (6%).

aug 25, 2025, 12:55 pm • 7 4

Replies

and concerns about the future of long-standing federal programs such as the Bird Banding Lab, a 100-year federal program www.usgs.gov/labs/bird-ba... that "runs all federal bird permits and maintains the data for all birds banded (captured, measured, marked, and released) in the United States".

aug 25, 2025, 12:55 pm • 7 3 • view

83% of respondents said that federal policies since Jan 20, 2025 had "extremely negative impact" or "irreparable harm" on their field of science

Respondents were asked to indicate the degree and direction of the impact of federal and state policies since January 20, 2025 on the categories of: “Impact on my field of science”, “Impact on my Department and Institution”, “Impact on my research”, “Impact on my career prospects”, and “Impact on my personal life”. A percentage of respondents reported positive impacts in each category (~1-2%). 83% of respondents said that federal policies since Jan 20, 2025 had

aug 25, 2025, 12:55 pm • 9 5 • view

Most respondents reported that US federal training programs were important to their development as scientists, with 71% reporting it was "very important" or "extremely important". Respondents from different career stages were concerned about an early career bottleneck...

aug 25, 2025, 12:55 pm • 5 1 • view

...Participants reported that federal cuts and uncertainty caused a severe narrowing of the job market, cancellations of undergraduate training programs, cuts to graduate admission programs by universities, rescinded offers, and cuts to merit-based fellowship programs.

aug 25, 2025, 12:55 pm • 7 1 • view

There reports of declines in government efficiency and loss of institutional knowledge in the federal workforce, such as delayed funding decisions, delays in collaborative research, and increased waste associated with the cancellation of projects that were in progress.

aug 25, 2025, 12:55 pm • 7 1 • view

Open-ended responses were along a continuum from positive impacts to irreparable harm. Respondents who thought the harm was irreparable cited disruptions to time-sensitive data collection or trainings, and harm to constituents caused by loss of institutional knowledge in the federal government.

aug 25, 2025, 12:55 pm • 6 1 • view

The survey delivers the first systematic evaluation of how policy changes have disrupted scientific work that supports American interests and serves the public good. Read the full technical report at: www.firsthandaccounts.org/impacts/2025...

aug 25, 2025, 12:55 pm • 7 4 • view