How Trump’s policies are impacting research and education in the North Country

Colleges, scientists express uncertainty around federal grants 

By Mike Lynch

The first several weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency have created uncertainty about the future of federal funding for North Country science and research projects. The federal administration’s actions have also raised questions about whether unbiased science will continue to be supported.

On Jan. 27, Pres. Donald Trump’s administration issued a funding freeze on federal grants until they were reviewed to ensure they complied with executive orders eliminating projects around topics such as climate change and diversity, equality and inclusion. Since then, federal courts have ordered the funding be released, and grant applicants have received a flurry of conflicting letters from federal agencies. 

Here’s a look at the type of research and programs that are impacted, or could be affected going forward:

College-run research programs

Paul Smith’s College President Dan Kelting said the college recently tried to make a reimbursement submission for an already approved National Science Foundation (NSF) grant that is intended to support geographically isolated communities. After the submission, the college received a vague letter saying the submission was cancelled and had to be reviewed for an indefinite period of time. Several days later, the college received a letter saying submissions were being accepted again. 

“This has been happening every day for the last two weeks,” Kelting said on Feb. 11.

Though there has been uncertainty, Kelting said he is hopeful that NSF project and other current Paul Smith’s College grants will be funded because they don’t conflict with recent executive orders related to diversity. He is most concerned about future opportunities disappearing. 

In the past, Paul Smith’s has received millions of dollars in federal funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Northern Border Regional Commission and the Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP). That includes $3 million from NSF over the last 20 years, and $1.8 million from the NBRC over the last four years. 

“Places like Paul Smiths, Clarkson, others, there’s a reliance on federal funding to support our missions, and typically those sources are reliable, meaning that… you can count on them existing year to year, so that you’re able to plan long term,” Kelting said. “If you cannot count on something existing year to year, suddenly your planning horizon becomes very, very short.” 

Is NSF funding drying up?

One place grants opportunities have been disappearing is at NSF. Around 10,000 research grants have been flagged for review as officials look for references associated with DEI programs, climate science, and other initiatives that don’t align with recently issued executive orders, according to a Feb. 3 report by Nature Magazine. 

Tom Langen, biology professor at Clarkson, said he’s witnessed the closure of NSF funding opportunities that are aligned with diversity initiatives and used by colleagues. He pointed to NSF’s Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program called Advance being “archived,” a term used for stopping a program. Advance funding had been used by women looking to further their careers in the STEM field. 

“My biggest concern, personally, is the impact that this is going to have on early career scientists and engineers … because this is killing many, many programs that provide opportunities for STEM in education at the graduate level,” said Langen, speaking from a personal perspective and not on behalf of Clarkson.

Lake Champlain Basin Program

The Vermont-based Lake Champlain Basin Program coordinates and funds efforts that benefit water quality, fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources within the basin in New York, Vermont and Quebec. 

Paul Smith College’s Adirondack Watershed Institute (AWI) currently has $1.25 million in active grants with LCBP for programs related to road salt research, aquatic invasive species spread prevention, climate change research and harmful algal blooms. 

In early February, grant recipients received a letter saying funds could be delayed or revoked, pending a review.

After days of uncertainty, on Wednesday, LCBP Director Eric Howe told the Explorer that all existing recipients with approved grants would receive their funding. 

He clarified that the frozen funds weren’t related to all programs, just those connected with the EPA’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. That pot of money funds projects such as aquatic invasive species management and upgrading road culverts so they could be more resilient against flooding and allow better passage for fish and other aquatic species.   

While Howe said those existing grants are going forward now, future opportunities would be reviewed to ensure they were consistent with current EPA policies.

“We will be making sure that they comply with the executive orders that were issued by the federal administration, particularly those around diversity, equity and inclusion, which will affect some of our grant programs only in that applicants will no longer be receiving extra points for projects that work with disadvantaged communities, which was a priority for the prior administration,” he said. 

Howe also said that projects related to climate science will not receive a “priority in scoring” over other proposals. When asked if those grants would be eliminated, he didn’t know yet. 

“We’ll be waiting for additional guidance around climate science from the EPA over the next few months,” he said. 

Infectious disease research 

Trudeau Institute in Saranac Lake scientists have been studying infectious diseases since it was founded to research tuberculosis in 1884. The nonprofit has 65 employees and is one of the biggest employers in Saranac Lake. 

Trudeau President William Riley said his scientists are working off several active federal grants right now. 

For instance, they were awarded a two-year $1,084,824 Small Business Innovative Research grant in October through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The project aims to provide tools for other researchers performing lab tests related to influenza and other viruses. It is being done in partnership with Ampersand Biosciences in Lake Clear.

Riley and others in his field are particularly concerned about a new NIH policy announced on Feb. 7 trying to impose a 15% limit on “indirect costs” associated with new and existing grant projects. A federal judge blocked that policy within days, but Riley is still concerned about how it will play out in the end. Indirect costs on grants are different with each grant and have traditionally been between 30 and 60%, he said. That money generally goes towards administrative costs, equipment upkeep and maintenance fees, among other things. 

With the new policy being debated in the courts, Riley is uncertain if reimbursements for its grants will eventually be paid in full. 

“It’s unclear right now,” Riley said. “It’s clear as mud.” 

Riley did say the cuts shouldn’t impact his current workforce because Trudeau has diversified its funding sources in recent years. It now receives only about 15 to 20% of its overall $9 million operating budget from NIH, a number that was significantly higher in the past. 

But cutting back NIH funding could hurt Trudeau’s plans for expansion.

“I wanted the institute to grow from 65 current individuals to 120,” he said. “This indirect rate will definitely slow down that process.” 

Questions about scientific integrity

In addition to the funding cuts, Kelting, Riley and others are also concerned about the federal administration’s impact on the scientific process. 

“This reduced funding … is really inevitably going to slow the pace of scientific discovery throughout the United States, and from our perspective as a medical research institute focused on infectious disease and immunology and human health, this is really going to delay development of new treatments and cures for diseases that’s really affecting millions of individuals, not only in the United States, but worldwide,” Riley said.  

Kelting is worried about the integrity of the grant process. He has served on NSF grant review panels in the past, but he is concerned about the executive branch exerting political influence on them. 

“It’s a time honored, rigorous, independent process done by experts with no conflict of interest,” he said. “People have a high confidence in the outcome. One of my concerns is intrusion into the process.” 

Those concerns were echoed by Curt Stager, a natural sciences professor at Paul Smith’s College.

“They’re going at science in a whole new way that they couldn’t do before, and that was to try to tear it out by the roots, by attacking the lifeblood of American science, by trying to cut off the funds and by dismantling the scientific infrastructure that gave us unbiased support,” he said.