Feature
Can US research get out of the DOGEhouse?
Funding may be restored, but rebuilding trust among researchers, students and global partners could take far longer for US higher ed.
By Seb Murray
18 June 2026
In brief
- US court reverses "unconstitutional" mass research cuts triggered by the government’s DOGE automated tools.
- Grants were targeted via political keywords, fuelling fears of self-censorship and destabilising vital international academic collaborations.
- Restoring funds is easier than rebuilding trust, as global partners now seek more reliable, stable international research alternatives.
The foundations of US research are not crumbling.
But confidence in the system that supports them is beginning to fray. Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of Science, told media recently that US science risks a "mortal blow" if the Trump administration presses ahead with plans to tighten political control over federal research grants.
The warning reflects a broader concern that extends beyond funding and follows a turbulent period for American research.
In April last year, an axe fell on more than 1,400 research grants in the US, disrupting – and in some cases halting – ongoing projects and throwing many universities and cultural institutions across the world’s largest economy into disarray.
The cuts, carried out by the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), were noted not only for being so wide sweeping, but also because of the unusual way in which they were executed.
Court filings from legal challenges by academic associations and individual researchers showed that officials had used automated tools including ChatGPT and keyword searches linked to political priorities – terms such as “LGBTQ” and “immigration” – to flag grants for termination.
Then in May this year, a federal judge ruled the cuts unconstitutional, citing “irreparable injury” and a broader “chilling effect” on academic work.
The ruling ordered some $100 million in funding be restored. But for many research partners, the damage was already done. “Research requires long-term commitment, and interruptions in such commitments have a negative impact on quality and impact,” says Hans de Wit, Professor Emeritus and former Director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.
For universities and research partners abroad, that uncertainty is causing them not to walk away from the US, but to rely on it a little less. Trust in the US research system is not collapsing, but it is fragmenting.
“There is still substantial trust in American scientists and even in their institutions as highly qualified partners,” de Wit says. “But there is increasing concern about funding, self-censorship pressures, data protection, knowledge security and political and economic instability.”
The US continues to be a leader in research globally, with many of the world’s leading universities and deepest funding pools. But confidence in the policy environment surrounding those institutions is beginning to ebb, according to Janet Ilieva, Founder and Director of Education Insight, a higher education research consultancy.
“I would distinguish between institutional trust in US universities, which remains strong, and confidence in the policy environment around them, which appears to have weakened,” says Dr Ilieva.
DOGE brought those concerns into sharper focus. The reversal of grants, the use of keyword searches and the reliance on automated tools have prompted fresh questions about how funding choices are determined, and how reliable the US research system is.
For many outside the country, the issue is not simply that funding was cut. It is that it could be cut this way.
One early sign of a more risk-based view of the US is showing up in student flows.
“While narrowing down a set of universities could be determined by factors such as cost and rankings, choosing which country to study is highly influenced by perceived risks and benefits,” says Rahul Choudaha, an analyst of international student mobility trends at DrEducation Research.
That balance is starting to tilt. “Prospective international students are seeing risks of studying in the US outweigh benefits,” he says, pointing to a steady stream of signals, from visa scrutiny to uncertainty over post-study work.
“Students and families are very sensitive to signals about visa access, post-study work, employability, safety and welcome,” says Ilieva, of Education Insight. So even speculation about tighter immigration pathways or more restrictive work options can therefore be enough to suppress demand.
Interest in the US remains strong, but students are weighing more affordable options in continental Europe (such as Germany) alongside expanding choices in east Asia and closer to home.
That shift is also beginning to show up in how institutions collaborate. “There is an inclination to look for alternative, more reliable partners, and even China becomes more attractive,” says de Wit.
For now, that does not amount to a rupture. The depth of US research ties, often built over decades, makes a sudden break unlikely. “International partners are unlikely to suddenly walk away from American universities,” says Ilieva.
The risk, instead, is more gradual. As she puts it, partners become more cautious, diversifying collaborations and looking for greater stability elsewhere. In practice, that means hedging rather than retreat: maintaining links with US institutions, while building parallel relationships in other systems.
The implications are particularly acute in research, where projects run over years and depend on stable, predictable funding. Grants often run over several years. Once that continuity is broken, it is not easily restored.
That is why the manner of the DOGE cuts has proved so significant, since those perceptions can persist. “Once students, researchers and partner institutions begin to perceive a destination as politically unpredictable, it takes time to rebuild confidence,” says Ilieva.
For all the unease, the US remains difficult to dislodge as a research base and partner.
“The US research university system became the envy of the world in the decades following WWII,” says Ben Wildavsky, a visiting fellow at Harvard Graduate School of Education. “We still have a disproportionate number of top-ranked institutions and we’re a magnet for international students from around the globe.”
That advantage is well established. In many fields, particularly in science, technology and business, US universities continue to set the pace, supported by scale, funding and a long-standing culture of academic competition.
But that position is not immune to pressure. “Cuts in research funding, and the broader populist backlash against foreigners, seriously threaten our global standing, at least in the near term,” Wildavsky adds.
The tension is reflected in how partners are responding. As Ilieva notes, “in many fields, US universities remain indispensable research partners,” even as concerns about policy risk grow.
So, the US retains a central role in the global research system. But it is a system under strain.
Its universities, funding and networks remain pretty well embedded in how knowledge is produced and shared. What is changing is the level of certainty around it.
As Ilieva notes: “That kind of reputational shift can be slow to appear in headline data, but very difficult to reverse once embedded.”
MEET THE AUTHOR
Seb Murray is a journalist and editor who writes often for the Financial Times and has written for The Times, The Guardian, The Economist, The Evening Standard and BBC Worklife. He focuses on higher education and global business. He also produces a wide range of content for a range of corporate and academic institutions. Seb is also a recognised expert on higher education and speaks at international conferences.