JOINBracing for a broad impact from US executive orders and activities
The first days and weeks of the Trump administration brought an onslaught of developments that affect the research community and scholarly endeavours, including executive orders (EOs) on regulations and diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as memos regarding public statements (including publication) by health officials and others. These have the potential to impact researchers, funding opportunities and regulations quite broadly, although their full effect remains unclear.
The situation is quite fluid: this piece had to be rewritten several times, and new information may have come to light by the time you read this, so be sure to check your information.
Be assured that STM continues to monitor and evaluate their impact. Three broad categories of activity deserve your particular notice at this moment.
First, an EO providing for a ‘regulatory freeze pending review’ directs agencies to pause the development of any new regulations and review any regulations that have been issued but not yet gone into effect. This would seem to apply to most public access policies as most are not due to go into effect before the end of the year. It will require a pause in those that have not been finalised (like the NSF PAPPG — see below) and a review for those that have (like the revised NIH public access policy).
Second, a memo directing agencies to ‘temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance’ was issued and then rescinded by the Administration. This temporarily paused all federal grants while it was in effect, but other memos and Executive Orders continue to partially block some funding (especially foreign aid and anything related to DEI). A separate previous memo to the Department of Health and Human Services led to the immediate cancellation of grant review panels and the communication of health information.
Third, the Administration appears to be targeting publications and scientific information it finds objectionable, including removing content from websites and ceasing the publication of key information. While much of the effort focuses on DEI, the scope appears broad. HHS had to clarify what appeared to be a total freeze on activities, including publication, but individual agencies differ in their approach. For example, CDC apparently ordered staff to withdraw all papers submitted to journals to allow for a review by the Trump administration. On the other hand, NIH researchers appear to be allowed to continue publishing, but “posting preprints, or unreviewed manuscripts, online is on hold.” At the same time, publications have disappeared from the Department of Energy’s repository OSTI, potentially in conflict with its public access policy. It is unclear if other publications or data have been removed elsewhere.
Taken together, these actions suggest a new level of political oversight of grants and research communication and raised considerable concern in the research community. However, it’s not clear how and if they will be implemented in the face of court action, Congressional response and ‘clarifications’ from the administration.
We’ll continue to track the activities of the new administration and attempt to shape them in support of our priorities and the broader research community.