Furthermore, some research topics are systematically rejected by the administration, considered problematic or ideological markers. Working on gender, inequalities, discriminations, far-right or fascism is not welcome. “I almost ticked off all the boxes on the list of banned words bingo,” jokes the young researcher.
Budget cuts
Manon (name changed), in her thirties, had no visa issues entering the United States. She even holds a “green card” allowing her to live in the country as a permanent resident. She arrived in New York in 2016 for a post-doc. At the end of her first contract in 2022, she had the opportunity to open a lab at New York Medical College to study breast cancer metastases. A cell biologist, she divides her time between fundamental research and teaching. She initially secured funding for her lab for three years, but now has to renew her contract annually with specific goals to achieve. “The goal set for me is to cover 50% of my salary with external funding, such as teaching,” she says. However, Manon’s teaching only represents 10% of her activities, so she needs to find additional funds. “Right now, with the budget cuts, it’s more complicated than before. Thankfully, there are private foundations active in breast cancer, like the Susan G. Komen Foundation. I’m waiting for a response at the moment, so fingers crossed.”
Manon attributes the funding difficulties she faces to the regulations of the National Institute of Health (NIH), which distributes public funds. “Since Trump’s election, they have been laying off people left and right, saying that the NIH is too expensive and costs need to be reduced,” she explains. This has caused a backlog of people waiting to know if they will be funded or not for much longer than it should be.
Researchers communicate only through encrypted messaging.
For Raphaël Demias-Morisset, what is happening at the NIH, as in other public institutions, reveals the ideological and theological motivations of the Maga movement. “There was a political agenda behind attacking hard sciences, medical research, climate research, or physics and chemistry. This continues the attacks on rationalism or Darwinism at the beginning of the 20th century. There is a political battle against science that has never disappeared from the right in the United States, and has now reached its goals through the Doge [Government Efficiency Department, in place from January to November 2025, Editor’s note].”
Security of exchanges
In his own research field, long-term consequences of Trump administration’s influence concern the young political science researcher. “We wonder if this is just a passing storm and if we can foresee a future, or if it is a lasting phenomenon. What is certain is that it affects the life at the center, with a lot of self-censorship. We avoid anything too critical to adopt a posture that is more neutral, more understanding towards Trumpism and the Maga movement. Concretely, this translates into inviting intellectuals from the Trump ecosystem to participate in scientific events to appear pluralistic enough to the administration,” he explains.
In this context, members of the Illiberalism Studies Program center also pay particular attention to the security of their data. They communicate only through encrypted messaging, a practice inherited from colleagues working on the post-communist space.
Relative optimism
Despite the difficulties they face in their daily work, both young researchers remain optimistic about the situation. “Donald Trump is not eternal,” argues Manon. “There have been elections in places where Democrats are not usually elected and where they have been elected. In New York, we elected a mayor who is outright called a communist. The change movement is coming.” This view is shared by Raphaël Demias-Morisset, who believes in the activism of civil society and the likely defeat of the Republican Party in the upcoming midterms. However, he also fears that this democratic rebellion may lead to an authoritarian security backlash. On the other hand, the political science researcher is pessimistic about the restoration of research credits in Europe, a sentiment shared by Manon, who does not plan to return to her home country due to the lack of opportunities.
(1) The name has been changed.
