The Perilous Trajectory: Project 2025 and the Envisioned Future of American Education and Scientific Inquiry
- 3 days ago
- 43 min read
Casandra Williamson, Editor
Research by Gemini 2.5 and Copilot AI systems
28 May 2025, Wednesday
Midday Muster, weekday afternoons around noon
On weekdays, usually at 1 PM Eastern.
[The timing is flexible since, as the caregiver for my mom, brother, and sister, my schedule is influenced by their appointments.]
The Path Forward, weekdays at 6 PM Eastern
Join me each weekday at 6 PM Eastern and 3 PM Pacific as I explore and analyze news stories.
Programming is available on Social Media.
I. Introduction: The Specter of Project 2025 and the Future of American Intellect
Overview: This report critically examines the policy proposals advanced by Project 2025 and articulated by figures associated with the Trump administration. The focus is specifically on their profound implications for the landscape of education and scientific research in the United States. The analysis draws upon historical precedents and contemporary actions to describe the trajectory of policy implementation and its cumulative impact.
The "New Dark Age" Framing: The user's query invokes the concept of a "new dark age." This report interprets this as a decline in intellectual freedom, a retreat from evidence-based policymaking, an erosion of democratic norms safeguarding open inquiry, and a significant setback in scientific and educational progress, ultimately diminishing societal well-being and global standing.
Methodology and Scope: The analysis is based on a comprehensive review of available research, including summaries of Project 2025's tenets, reports on current Trump administration actions (many dated to 2025), and historical comparisons. It is important to note that direct access to the initial Atlantic article referenced in the user query 1, the full 'Mandate for Leadership' PDF documents concerning Education 2 and Science 2, and specific FY2021 Department of Education appropriations details 3 was not possible; therefore, this analysis relies on the provided summaries and related accessible documents. This inherent limitation underscores the challenge of fully assessing comprehensive agendas when primary source materials are not entirely available.
Many of the critical news reports and policy documents underpinning this analysis are dated to early and mid-2025 4, reflecting current events as these actions are unfolding. Consequently, this report analyzes not just abstract proposals but current, ongoing actions and their effects as foreseen by these sources.
Report Objective: To provide an evidence-based analysis of how these policies are reshaping American education and science, and to assess the characteristics of the resultant societal regression.
II. The Project 2025 Agenda: A Blueprint for Authoritarian Governance
A. Core Ideology: Centralizing Power and Reshaping the State
Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan fundamentally altering the structure and functioning of the U.S. federal government. At its heart lies a set of interconnected ideological commitments that pave the way for its sweeping proposals.
Unitary Executive Theory: A cornerstone of Project 2025 is its adherence to a radical interpretation of the unitary executive theory.7 This theory posits that the President possesses nearly absolute control over the entire executive branch. Such an interpretation is far from a purely academic construct; it is a practical justification for the concentration of power within the presidency, thereby enabling the circumvention of traditional checks and balances, including congressional oversight and judicial review. The practical outcome is rapid and extensive policy changes being implemented largely through executive fiat, diminishing the deliberative processes typically associated with democratic governance.
Christian Nationalism and Cultural Conservatism: The policy prescriptions within Project 2025 are heavily imbued with a Christian nationalist worldview and a deep-seated social conservatism.7 The stated aims include restoring "the family as the centerpiece of American life" and securing "God-given individual rights," interpreted through a specific, traditionalist lens.9 This ideological foundation directly influences proposed policies concerning educational content, the definition and enforcement of civil rights, and the funding and direction of scientific research, particularly in areas deemed controversial, such as stem cell research or gender studies.7 The drive here is not merely to govern but to impose a particular moral and cultural framework upon the nation, a framework that inherently risks marginalizing dissenting viewpoints and diverse communities whose values and beliefs may not align.
Dismantling the "Administrative State" and "Deep State": A prominent theme within Project 2025 is the call to dismantle what its proponents characterize as an unaccountable, inefficient, and ideologically liberal "administrative state" or "deep state".7 This objective is translating into the mass replacement of career, merit-based civil servants with individuals selected for their political loyalty to the President and the Project 2025 agenda.7 The perceived problem of an entrenched bureaucracy is thus "solved" by creating a new bureaucracy, one defined by fealty rather than impartial expertise. This approach is creating significant risks: the erosion of institutional memory, the loss of specialized knowledge crucial for effective governance, and the replacement of non-partisanship with political allegiance can cripple the government's ability to deliver essential services and perform its regulatory functions effectively.11
The combination of an empowered executive, under the unitary executive theory, and a bureaucracy staffed by loyalists creates a formidable mechanism for policy implementation and entrenchment. Policies being enacted under such a system are proving exceptionally resilient to reversal by subsequent administrations with differing agendas. The deep embedding of ideologically aligned personnel, operating within agencies structurally reoriented towards enhanced presidential control, presents a significant barrier to future policy shifts, potentially locking in the Project 2025 agenda for the long term, irrespective of future electoral outcomes. Furthermore, the populist rhetoric decrying an "unaccountable" bureaucracy serves as a convenient justification for actions that critics contend amount to an authoritarian consolidation of power.7 The "dismantling" is thus less about achieving neutral efficiency and more about substituting one perceived set of biases with a more centralized, ideologically rigid system, potentially at the expense of democratic checks and balances.
B. Key Policy Levers: Executive Orders, Appointments, and Budgetary Control
The architects of Project 2025 have outlined a clear strategy for implementing their agenda, relying heavily on the direct powers of the presidency and the strategic control of governmental machinery.
Executive Authority as Primary Tool: A significant portion of the policies detailed in Project 2025 are being implemented via executive authority, thereby minimizing reliance on congressional approval, which can be slow, contentious, and uncertain.7 This approach is evident in the immediate executive orders upon taking office, such as those targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government and by extension, in federally funded institutions.14 The reliance on executive orders is allowing for the rapid enactment of policies, potentially overwhelming opposition and establishing new operational realities before significant resistance can coalesce.
Politicization of Federal Agencies: Central to the Project 2025 strategy is the assertion of partisan control over key federal agencies. This extends beyond traditionally political appointments to include agencies designed to operate with a degree of independence, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and various regulatory bodies.7 Crucially for this report, this politicization drive also encompasses scientific agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).7 The intent is to ensure these agencies adhere to the administration's political and ideological agenda, transforming them from impartial arbiters or expert bodies into instruments of executive will. This is fundamentally altering their role and eroding their credibility.
Impoundment of Funds: A particularly controversial tool advocated by key Project
2025 figures, such as Russell Vought, is the presidential impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds.12 This practice, widely considered illegal, allows the President to unilaterally withhold funding from programs or agencies disfavored by the administration, effectively defunding them without congressional consent. Such a maneuver represents a direct challenge to Congress's constitutional "power of the purse" and signifies a dramatic consolidation of power in the executive branch.
The strategy of employing executive orders and politicized appointments to achieve rapid and sweeping changes is introducing a high degree of risk to institutional stability and the rule of law. The sheer speed and breadth of these transformations are overwhelming existing governmental structures, leading to operational chaos, a deluge of legal challenges, and a potential breakdown in the delivery of essential government functions.17 The level of politicization, particularly within agencies that depend on non-partisan expertise for their effective functioning—such as scientific research bodies, law enforcement, and justice departments—is threatening not only to introduce bias into decision-making processes but also to precipitate a significant decline in operational capacity and international standing. Decisions rooted in political expediency rather than scientific evidence or established legal principles are leading to flawed policies, ineffective enforcement, a deterioration in research quality, and a loss of trust from both the American public and international partners who rely on the integrity of U.S. institutions. A "brain drain" of experts, unwilling to operate under such compromised conditions, is a damaging consequence being observed.18
III. The Assault on Education: From Federal Deconstruction to Ideological Reconstruction
The education system, from K-12 through higher education, is undergoing transformation under the Project 2025 framework. The policies entail a radical reduction in the federal role, a redirection of public funds towards private and choice-based options, and a concerted effort to reshape curricula and institutional missions according to conservative ideological precepts.
A. Dismantling the Department of Education: Returning Power or Abdicating Responsibility?
A central action within Project 2025 and echoed in Trump administration statements is the elimination or radical downsizing of the U.S. Department of Education (DoE).7 An executive order dated March 20, 2025, has directed the Education Secretary to "take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education".20
The stated rationale behind this move is multifaceted. Proponents argue that dismantling the DoE returns authority over education to states and local communities, where they believe it rightfully belongs.20 They contend that the federal department represents bureaucratic overreach and has failed to improve student outcomes despite decades of federal spending, citing stagnant scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the growth of administrative staff as evidence of its ineffectiveness.21
However, critics view the dismantling with alarm, arguing it is having devastating consequences for educational equity and access. They maintain that this move is gutting crucial federal funding streams that support vulnerable student populations, including low-income students, students with disabilities, and English language learners.19 Furthermore, the DoE's critical role in enforcing federal civil rights laws in education, collecting national education data, conducting research, and focusing national attention on key educational challenges is being severely undermined or lost
entirely.11
The mechanism for this dismantling involves transferring the DoE's existing functions to other federal agencies—such as the Department of Justice for civil rights enforcement, the Department of Health and Human Services for certain student support programs, or the Census Bureau for data collection—or converting federal education funding into block grants provided to states with significantly fewer restrictions and oversight.11 This dispersal of responsibilities is leading to a fragmented and inefficient system, characterized by a loss of specialized expertise within agencies ill-equipped for educational oversight, and reduced accountability for how funds are spent and how programs are implemented.24 Block grants, in particular, are raising concerns that states are diverting funds away from their intended purpose or beneficiaries, further disadvantaging already marginalized student groups.19
The dismantling of the Department of Education is a strategic maneuver significantly weakening the federal government's capacity to enforce civil rights in educational settings. The DoE, particularly through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), serves as a primary enforcer of landmark federal laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting racial discrimination) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting gender discrimination, including protections for LGBTQ+ students), as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).19 Project 2025's plan includes the gutting of OCR, including drastic budget cuts and a reorientation of its mission, limiting enforcement actions primarily to the courts and eliminating important administrative tools for addressing discrimination.19 The justification offered for these cuts to OCR includes accusations that the office promotes "radical transgender ideology".29 Transferring enforcement responsibilities to the Department of Justice and compelling individuals to seek redress solely through the court system is making it substantially more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive for students and families to challenge discriminatory practices.19 Consequently, the elimination or severe weakening of the DoE is directly facilitating the broader Project 2025 objective of rolling back civil rights protections and advancing a socially conservative agenda within the nation's schools.
Moreover, the rhetoric of "returning authority to states" 14, while appealing to principles of local control, obscures a deeper intent to enable greater ideological conformity at the state and local levels. This is resulting in a fragmented educational landscape where quality and curriculum are heavily influenced by partisan political agendas rather than sound educational research and best practices. Project 2025 actively promotes concepts like "parental rights" and "school choice" as vehicles for controlling curriculum content, frequently targeting discussions of race, American history, gender identity, and LGBTQ+ issues.19 The dismantling of federal oversight via the DoE is empowering states and local school districts to implement these ideologically driven curricula with fewer external checks and balances. This is leading to widespread censorship of educational materials 28 and the promotion of specific, often narrow, viewpoints, such as Christian nationalist perspectives 7, at the expense of an objective, comprehensive, and inclusive education. The outcome is not enhanced local control in service of diverse student needs, but a more ideologically constrained form of local control, leading to significant disparities in educational content and quality across the nation, thereby undermining national cohesion and the development of critical thinking skills.
B. K-12 Education: Privatization, Curriculum Wars, and Civil Rights Erosion
The K-12 education system is undergoing a particularly aggressive overhaul, characterized by a push towards privatization, intense battles over curriculum content, and a rollback of civil rights protections for vulnerable students.
Defunding Public Schools and Promoting Vouchers: A core component of the Project 2025 education agenda is the systematic defunding of public schools, coupled with the promotion of school choice mechanisms such as private school vouchers and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).19 This involves phasing out direct federal education funding or converting existing program funds into block grants that states can then redirect towards these choice initiatives. Notably, charter schools are often the only educational program mentioned in line for increased federal funding in some proposals.29 The stated rationale for these policies is to empower families with more educational options, foster competition among schools, and ultimately improve student outcomes.21
However, critics voice strong opposition, arguing that these policies divert essential taxpayer money from public schools to private institutions that often lack accountability regarding non-discrimination, academic quality, and the use of public funds.19 This redirection of resources is exacerbating existing inequities, further hollowing out public schools, and disproportionately harming students from marginalized communities, including low-income students, students of color, and students with disabilities. Historical evidence and research on voucher programs do not consistently demonstrate positive academic outcomes and, in some cases, have been shown to increase school segregation.23
Curriculum Censorship (Anti-DEI, Anti-CRT): A central and highly visible element of the K-12 reforms is an aggressive campaign against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
(DEI) programs and the teaching of what is often broadly and imprecisely termed Critical Race Theory (CRT). These concepts and educational approaches are frequently characterized by proponents of Project 2025 as "racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda" that "poison our children".13 The Trump administration has issued executive orders aimed at ending DEI initiatives within the federal government, with clear implications for federally funded educational institutions.14 This ideological battle over curriculum content is leading to a significant chilling effect on discussions about systemic inequality, a whitewashing of American history, and the creation of hostile learning environments for minority students and educators who value diverse perspectives.19
Targeting Vulnerable Student Populations: These policies take particular aim at several vulnerable student groups:
● LGBTQ+ Students: Project 2025's measures are making school environments more difficult and less affirming for LGBTQI students. These include undermining existing civil rights protections, altering data collection practices to effectively "make nonbinary children disappear," rescinding Title IX regulations that protect students from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and sanctioning disrespect towards LGBTQI individuals.11 The Trump administration is enforcing its 2020 interpretation of Title IX, which reverses broader protections established subsequently.14
● Students with Disabilities: The conversion of funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) into block grants is a significant concern.19 Such a shift is undermining crucial legal protections, leading to inappropriate educational placements, and resulting in more exclusionary disciplinary practices, particularly for disabled students of color who are already disproportionately affected by such measures. Funding for some disability programs has been halted abruptly under the Trump administration.32
● Low-Income and Minority Students: Cuts to vital programs like Title I, which supports schools with high concentrations of low-income students, and the elimination of early childhood education programs like Head Start 13, are disproportionately harming these student populations. Furthermore, changes to school discipline policies, including the rejection of disparate impact analysis (which examines policies that, while facially neutral, have a discriminatory effect on certain groups), are making it harder to address systemic biases in how discipline is applied, further disadvantaging minority students.19
The invocation of "parental rights" in curriculum development and oversight 21 is a powerful tool for a vocal minority to exert control over public education content. This approach, while framed as empowering parents, is leading to a "lowest common denominator" curriculum, where educational materials are stripped of any content deemed potentially controversial by the most conservative or reactive groups. Policies allowing small clusters of parents to challenge and demand the removal of materials or topics they find objectionable 28 frequently target content related to American history, race, racism, LGBTQ+ identities, and diverse cultural perspectives.19 Educational institutions, fearing legal challenges, political repercussions, or loss of funding, are engaging in preemptive self-censorship, removing a wide array of valuable educational resources simply to avoid controversy. The ultimate consequence is an impoverished and narrow curriculum that fails to reflect the diverse experiences of students or adequately prepare them for a complex and interconnected world. This effectively allows a narrow ideological viewpoint to dictate the content of public education for all students.
The combined effect of defunding public schools, promoting private alternatives that often lack robust accountability, and simultaneously attacking civil rights protections amounts to a multi-pronged strategy. This strategy is dismantling the vision of equitable public education and is leading to a re-segregation or further stratification of the educational system along lines of socioeconomic class, race, religion, and ideology. Voucher programs and ESAs divert public funds to private schools, many of which are religious and are not bound by the same civil rights obligations or accountability standards as public institutions, potentially permitting discriminatory practices.19 Concurrently, the mechanisms for enforcing civil rights within the remaining public schools are systematically weakened.19 This policy combination is encouraging an exodus from public schools by families who can afford to supplement vouchers or who seek ideologically aligned educational environments. Such an exodus is leaving public schools with diminished resources and a higher concentration of students with the greatest educational needs. The long-term impact is the entrenchment of a two-tiered education system: one private, less regulated, and potentially discriminatory; the other public, under-resourced, and struggling. This outcome echoes the segregation patterns that existed before Brown v. Board of Education, albeit manifested along new and more complex fault lines.31
C. Higher Education: Funding Threats, Ideological Pressure, and Weakened Access
America's higher education institutions are also squarely in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and Project 2025, facing threats to their funding, autonomy, and ability to serve a diverse student body.
Funding as a Lever for Control: The Trump administration is using billions of dollars in federal research grants and contracts as a powerful lever to compel colleges and universities to align with its political and ideological agenda.4 This includes demands for increased representation of conservative ideology on campuses. Specific actions include the freezing of substantial grant funding to prominent universities such as Columbia University ($400 million) and Harvard University ($2.2 billion), as well as funding freezes affecting Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania.4 The justifications for these actions are often tied to politically charged issues, such as responses to a federal antisemitism task force, or penalties for institutional policies like allowing a transgender athlete to compete on a women's team.4 These punitive funding actions frequently bypass established investigative processes, lack clear legal justifications, and are executed with little to no due process for the affected institutions.4 The explicit goal, as articulated by influential figures like Chris Rufo, is to instill "an existential terror" in colleges and universities.4 This politicization of research funding, which has traditionally been awarded based on scientific merit and peer review, is a profound threat to academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
Student Loan Overhaul and Reduced Access: Project 2025's sweeping policies are overhauling the federal student loan system. These include the end of existing federal student loan programs, privatizing student lending, eliminating popular income-based repayment plans, and abolishing public service loan forgiveness programs.11 Such changes are dramatically increasing the financial burden on millions of student borrowers, with analyses showing that monthly payments are increasing by 1.3 to 2 times for the average borrower.11 Concurrently, longstanding bipartisan programs like TRIO and GEAR UP, which provide crucial support and resources to help low-income and first-generation students access and succeed in college, are being eliminated, dismissed as "relics of the past".29 These policy shifts are inevitably making higher education less affordable and less accessible, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is reversing decades of progress in expanding educational attainment, exacerbating social stratification, and diminishing economic mobility.
Attacks on "Woke Diversicrats" and Accreditation: The authors of Project 2025 explicitly state their view that higher education has been "captured by woke 'diversicrats'" and are highly critical of what they term the "federal accreditation cartel".21 Reforms include significant changes to the accreditation system, such as prohibiting accrediting agencies from mandating DEI policies and granting states more control over the accreditation process.21 While framed as promoting intellectual diversity and reducing burdensome regulations, these changes are fundamentally weakening the accreditation system that currently serves to ensure academic quality, protect institutional autonomy, and facilitate the transferability of credits between institutions.26 Such reforms are imposing ideological conformity on universities and could lead to a decline in educational standards.
The strategy of employing funding freezes and investigations 4, often justified by ideological grievances related to issues like antisemitism, DEI, or transgender rights, serves a dual purpose. It not only punishes specific institutions deemed out of step with the administration's agenda but is also creating a broader climate of fear and self-censorship across the entire higher education sector. The high-profile nature of funding freezes at major universities sends an unmistakable message to other institutions. Given that these actions are often sudden, lack transparent processes or clear legal grounding 4, other colleges and universities, fearing similar repercussions, are proactively altering their policies, curricula, or campus activities to avoid attracting negative attention from the administration. This "existential terror" 4 is stifling academic freedom, critical inquiry, and open debate far beyond the directly targeted institutions, leading to a pervasive chilling effect on intellectual discourse nationwide.
The dismantling of the federal student aid infrastructure 11, combined with direct attacks on university autonomy and academic freedom, is a fundamental effort to redefine the role of higher education in American society. This vision is shifting higher education away from being considered a public good, essential for broad intellectual and societal advancement, towards becoming a market-driven commodity. The emphasis on workforce skills and career and technical education over "traditional" liberal arts 21, while having some merit in addressing labor market needs, is, in this context, narrowing the perceived purpose of higher education. Attacks on "woke diversicrats" and accreditation reforms 21 are stripping universities of their ability to self-govern according to academic values, making them more susceptible to external political and market pressures. The cumulative effect is a transformation of higher education into a system that prioritizes short-term economic utility and ideological conformity over critical thinking, broad knowledge creation, and social critique, thereby diminishing its vital role as an independent pillar of a democratic society.
Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Proposed vs. Enacted/Recent Education Budgets (Selected Programs, $ Billions)
Progra m/Agen cy | FY18 Enacted (Approx .) | FY19 Enacted (Approx .) | FY20 Enacted (Approx .) | FY21 Enacted (Approx .) | Trump First Term Proposa l (Exampl e: FY18 or FY20) | Current Admin Actions /Budget (FY26) | % Change (FY26 Actions vs. Recent Enacted Avg.) |
Dept. of Educatio n (Total) | $70.9 35 | $71.4 36 | $72.7 37 | $73.5 (LHHS Bill) 38 | $59 (FY18 Prop.) 34 | -$12 from current (net) 29 | Significa nt Cut (e.g., ~15-20% ) |
Title I | $14.9 (level) 34 | Maintain ed 36 | $16.3 39 | Maintain ed 38 | $1B increase for FOCUS grants (FY18) 34 | Preserve , but shift to block grant 29 | Potential cut via block grant structur e |
IDEA | $12.7 (level) 34 | Maintain ed 36 | $13.0 39 | Maintain ed 38 | Level (FY18) 34 | Preserve , but consolid ate 7 | Potential cut via consolid ation |
|
|
|
|
|
| program s 29 |
|
Office for Civil Rights (OCR) | ~$0.110 (derived ) | ~$0.112 (derived ) | ~$0.117 (derived ) | ~$0.13 (derived ) | Cut by $49M (35%) 29 | Cut by $49M (35%) 29 | -35% |
Pell Grants (Max Award) | Maintain ed 34 | Maintain ed 36 | $6,195 40 | Maintain ed 38 | Level (FY18, FY20) 34 | Maintain , expand to short-te rm 39 | Stable/E xpanded Eligibility |
TRIO / GEAR UP | $1.02 (TRIO+G EARUP, FY18 Sav.) 34 | ~$1.3 (TRIO $1.06B) 40 | ~$1.3 (TRIO $1.06B) 40 | ~$1.4 (Est.) | Eliminat e 29 | Eliminat e 29 | -100% |
Charter Schools Program | +$0.167 (FY18) 34 | ~$0.44 36 | $0.500 41 | Maintain ed 38 | +$0.060 (FY20) 41 | +$0.060 (to $0.500) 29 | Increase |
Federal Work-St udy | Maintain ed 34 | ~$1.13 40 | $0.500 (Prop.) 40 | ~$1.2 38 | Cut to $0.500 (FY20 Prop.) 40 | Cut by $0.980 42 | Significa nt Cut |
Supp. Ed. Opp. Grant (SEOG) | Maintain ed 34 | ~$0.84 40 | Eliminat e (Prop.) 40 | ~$0.88 38 | Eliminat e (FY20 Prop.) 40 | Eliminat e 42 | -100% |
Note: Enacted figures are approximate and based on available documents. "Current Admin Actions/Budget (FY26)" refers to the "skinny budget" described in 2025-dated sources reflecting ongoing policy. Percentage change is illustrative. Some FY21 enacted details are from the overall LHHS bill due to inaccessibility of.3 This table starkly illustrates the consistent pattern of cuts to programs supporting educational access and equity, alongside targeted increases for choice-based initiatives like charter schools.
IV. Politicizing Science: From Funding Cuts to Ideological Mandates
The American scientific enterprise, long a global leader in innovation and discovery, is facing an unprecedented challenge from the policy agenda outlined by Project 2025 and the actions of the Trump administration. This challenge is manifesting as drastic funding cuts, agency reorganizations driven by political ideology, and the imposition of new standards for scientific conduct that threaten to undermine research integrity and progress.
A. Targeting Key Agencies and Slashing Research Budgets
The scale of budget cuts to federal science agencies is staggering. The Trump administration's FY2026 budget, as reported in various 2025 documents, enacts a reduction of roughly 40% (or 37% in other accounts) to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a 55% (or 56%) cut to the National Science Foundation (NSF).5 The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) budget is targeted for a 55% slash.5 Even the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, while faring relatively better, faces a 14% cut.43 These are not marginal adjustments but deep, structural reductions that are fundamentally altering the landscape of American science. Beyond agency-wide cuts, specific institutions have also been targeted; for instance, Harvard University has faced $2.2 billion in grant suspensions under the Trump administration.4
The consequences of such cuts are immediate and severe, leading to the widespread cancellation of research projects, the shuttering of laboratories, and significant job losses for scientists and support staff across the country.18 The American research apparatus, built over decades of sustained investment, is being severely crippled.
Beyond budgetary assaults, Project 2025's agenda includes the comprehensive restructuring and, in some cases, elimination of key scientific bodies. Actions include dismantling the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), eliminating DOE offices dedicated to renewable energy and carbon management, and subjecting EPA research activities to much closer oversight by political appointees.16 For the NIH, there are suggestions to convert its substantial grants budget into block grants administered by state governments and to impose term limits on its senior leadership.10 These reorganizations represent a fundamental reshaping of the federal scientific infrastructure, prioritizing political control and ideological alignment over scientific independence, merit-based decision-making, and established expertise.
The sheer magnitude of the budget cuts to cornerstone scientific agencies like the NIH and NSF suggests an intention that extends beyond mere fiscal prudence or reprioritization. Reductions of 40% to 56% 5 cannot be absorbed through efficiency gains alone; they inevitably mean a wholesale contraction of the nation's research capacity. These agencies are the primary funders of basic and applied research across a vast spectrum of disciplines, underpinning innovation in medicine, technology, engineering, and social sciences. Such drastic cuts signal a philosophical shift away from robust public investment in science, diminishing the federal government's role as a primary driver of knowledge creation and ceding scientific leadership to other nations or to a private sector that historically underinvests in foundational, long-term research.
Furthermore, the pattern of targeting specific, high-profile universities with massive grant freezes 4, often justified by ideological grievances rather than concerns about scientific merit or research misconduct, indicates a willingness to use research funding as a punitive instrument. When funding for institutions like Harvard is frozen based on reviews of their handling of antisemitism or policies on transgender athletes 4—actions often undertaken suddenly, without clear legal justification, and bypassing normal review processes—it sends a chilling message across academia. Universities are becoming hesitant to support or conduct research on topics deemed politically sensitive, or to vigorously defend academic freedom, for fear of becoming the next target. The long-term effect is an erosion of scientific independence and the potential for research agendas to be dictated by political anxieties rather than legitimate scientific inquiry.
B. Imposing "Gold Standard Science" and Ideological Litmus Tests
Concurrent with budget cuts and agency restructuring is an effort to redefine the very nature of scientific practice through initiatives like "Gold Standard Science." A Trump executive order, signed in May 2025, restores this standard, which is defined by principles such as reproducibility, transparency, and freedom from conflicts of interest, but also notably emphasizes skepticism of existing assumptions and the acceptance of negative results as positive outcomes.6 The order directs federal agencies to align their activities with these principles and to reinstate the scientific integrity policies of the first Trump administration.
The stated rationale for "Gold Standard Science" is to rebuild public trust in science, prevent its manipulation for political ends, ensure data transparency, and compel the acknowledgment of scientific uncertainties.6 Proponents point to alleged misuses of science by the previous (Biden) administration, citing examples such as the CDC's school reopening guidance being influenced by teachers' unions, or the use of "unrealistic worst-case" climate scenarios like RCP 8.5 to justify climate policies.6
While the espoused principles of "Gold Standard Science" might appear laudable on the surface, critics express deep concern that this initiative is being selectively applied to discredit and defund research areas that are disfavored by the administration, particularly climate change research, public health studies, and certain social sciences.5 The emphasis on "dissenting viewpoints" is being exploited to elevate fringe theories or to cast doubt on well-established scientific consensus, effectively creating an ideological litmus test for scientific validity.
This ideological filtering is evident in the specific research areas targeted for defunding:
● Climate Science: This field is undergoing significant scaling back across multiple agencies. Project 2025's plan involves a "whole-of-government unwinding" of "climate fanaticism," including disbanding NOAA's climate research division
(labeled "climate alarmism") and preventing the EPA from using what are deemed "unrealistic" climate projections.5
● Stem Cell Research: NIH funding for human embryonic stem cell research and any research deemed "embryo destructive" is being eliminated, reflecting strong objections from social conservatives.7
● "Woke Social Sciences": Cuts to the NSF are explicitly directed to come from research related to "woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences".5
Parallel to these defunding efforts are actions to tighten research security, primarily by restricting visas for foreign students and researchers, particularly those from nations designated as "enemy nations" (often implying China), and by limiting academic exchanges.16 While ensuring the security of sensitive research is a legitimate concern, overly broad and potentially discriminatory restrictions are stifling vital international collaboration, hindering the recruitment of global talent, and fueling xenophobia, ultimately damaging U.S. scientific competitiveness and innovation.
The "Gold Standard Science" initiative 6, despite its presentation as a move towards enhanced objectivity and rigor, is functioning as a mechanism for imposing ideological control over the scientific process itself. By establishing a particular definition of what constitutes "good" science and empowering political appointees to oversee its application, particularly in agencies like the EPA 16, the administration is selectively validating research that aligns with its policy objectives while dismissing or defunding research that contradicts them. Principles such as "skepticism of assumptions" and "consideration of different or dissenting viewpoints" 6, when applied in politically charged arenas like climate science, are being weaponized to lend undue credibility to fringe theories or to sow doubt about established scientific consensus (e.g., the criticism of the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario 6). The directive for political appointees to oversee EPA research 16 and for the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to assess the independence of research contractors 16 further entrenches political influence over scientific endeavors. This is creating a perilous system where scientific validity is being determined by political alignment rather than empirical evidence and rigorous peer review, fundamentally undermining the integrity of the scientific enterprise.
Simultaneously, the targeted defunding of specific research areas—such as climate science, "woke" social sciences, and stem cell research 5—alongside the professed promotion of "fundamental research" 16 represents a strategic effort to redirect scientific resources. This redirection is favoring areas with direct military or industrial applications that align with the administration's priorities, such as artificial intelligence, quantum information science, and nuclear technology 5, while simultaneously starving curiosity-driven research and studies addressing complex social and environmental challenges that do not conform to the administration's ideology or immediate economic interests. The redefinition of "priority" science, coupled with the oversight mechanisms of "Gold Standard Science," is thus leading to a narrower, more utilitarian scientific agenda, neglecting long-term basic research in disfavored fields and diminishing the capacity to address multifaceted societal problems.
C. Impact on Innovation, Global Standing, and Scientific Workforce
The cumulative impact of these policies on American science is profound and damaging, affecting innovation, the nation's global scientific standing, and the scientific workforce itself.
Brain Drain: A significant and immediate consequence of funding cuts and the erosion of academic freedom is a "brain drain." U.S.-based scientists are losing jobs or grants and are actively being recruited by foreign universities and governments that promise a more stable and intellectually open environment.18 Applications from U.S.-based scientists to research programs in Europe have reportedly seen a marked increase.18 The U.S. has been the world's leading funder of research and development (R&D) for decades, attracting top talent from around the globe.18 An exodus of this talent is inevitably diminishing U.S. innovation capacity and its long-held global scientific leadership.
Economic Consequences: The link between public investment in R&D and economic prosperity is well-established. Reductions in public R&D spending are leading to decreased productivity growth, suppressed private investment in innovation, lower government revenues, and ultimately, a contraction in Gross Domestic Product (GDP).51 One analysis shows that a 25% cut in public R&D spending is reducing long-term GDP by approximately 3.8%, an impact comparable to the economic contraction experienced during the Great Recession.51 More specifically, NIH funding cuts are resulting in an economic loss of $16 billion and the loss of 68,000 jobs nationwide.47 Every dollar invested in NIH research is estimated to generate $2.56 in new economic activity.47 Undermining scientific research, therefore, has direct and substantial negative consequences for economic growth, job creation, and overall national prosperity.
Chilling Effect on Inquiry: Beyond direct funding impacts, the politicization of science and research priorities creates a chilling effect on intellectual inquiry. Scientists are becoming hesitant to pursue research in controversial areas or on topics that might attract negative attention from the administration, leading to self-censorship.27 This is hindering discovery, slowing innovation, and preventing the exploration of critical societal challenges. Furthermore, the abrupt termination of ongoing research projects due to sudden funding cuts is not only demoralizing for the scientific community but also represents a significant waste of prior investment and resources, undermining the efficiency it purports to seek.27 This damages the integrity of the scientific process and curtails the nation's ability to develop evidence-based solutions to pressing problems.
The phenomenon of "brain drain" 18 extends beyond the loss of individual talented researchers; it signifies a systemic weakening of the entire U.S. research ecosystem. When experienced scientists depart, they take with them not only their individual expertise but also their mentorship capacity, invaluable institutional knowledge, and extensive international collaborative networks. This loss directly impacts the training and development of the next generation of scientists and can disrupt the continuity and productivity of U.S. laboratories and research institutions. Such departures are creating leadership vacuums, stalling ongoing projects, and diminishing the collaborative dynamism that fuels innovation, making it increasingly difficult for the U.S. to attract and retain top scientific talent in the future.
The combined impact of severe funding cuts, pervasive politicization, and an accelerating brain drain is precipitating a generational setback in U.S. scientific leadership. This occurs at a time when other nations and international blocs, notably the European Union and China, are actively increasing their investments in science and technology and aggressively recruiting global talent.18 A significant decline in U.S. scientific output and innovation, juxtaposed with advancements elsewhere, is shifting the global balance of scientific and technological power. Such a shift carries long-term, adverse implications for American economic competitiveness, national security, and the nation's capacity to contribute to solving global challenges.
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Proposed vs. Enacted/Recent Science Agency Budgets (Selected Agencies, $ Billions)
Agency/ Progra m | FY18 Enacted (Approx .) | FY19 Enacted (Approx .) | FY20 Enacted (Approx .) | FY21 Enacted (Approx .) | Trump First Term Proposa l (Exampl e: FY19 or FY20) | Current Admin Actions /Budget (FY26) | % Change (FY26 Actions vs. Recent Enacted Avg.) |
NIH (Total Program Level) | $37.3 52 | $39.3 52 | $41.9 53 | $42.9 (Incl. Cures) 53 | $34.4 (FY20 Prop.) 53 | ~$30 (Cut by 37-40%) 18 | -37% to -40% |
NSF (Total) | $7.5 (Approx. from FY17) 54 | ~$8.1 (Est.) | ~$8.3 (Est.) | $8.5 55 | $7.1 (FY20 Prop.) 40 | $3.9 (Cut by 55-56%) 5 | -55% to -56% |
DOE Office of Science | ~$5.4 56 | ~$6.6 (Est.) | $7.0 (Est.) | ~$7.0 (Est.) | $5.5 (FY20 Prop.) 40 | $7.1 (Cut by 14%) 43 | -14% |
EPA (Total Agency) | ~$8.1 (Total, not just R&D) | ~$8.8 (Total) | ~$9.1 (Total) | ~$9.2 (Total) | ~$5 (FY26 Prop. for total) 5 | $4.8 (Cut by 55% from ~$10.6B FY25) 5 | -55% (Total Agency) |
EPA Office of | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | -$0.235 from | Significa nt Cut |
R&D (ORD) |
|
|
|
|
| current 5 |
|
NASA Science Mission Dir. | ~$5.9 (Est.) | ~$6.9 40 | $6.3 (Prop.) 40 | ~$7.3 (Est.) | $6.3 (FY20 Prop.) 40 | $3.9 (Cut by 46%) 43 | -46% |
Climate Researc h (General ) | --- | --- | --- | --- | Targeted for cuts 5 | Targeted for cuts/eli mination 16 | Major Reductio ns |
Stem Cell Researc h (NIH) | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | Defund embryon ic 7 | -100% (Embryo nic) |
"Woke" Social Science s (NSF) | --- | --- | --- | --- | Targeted for cuts 5 | Targeted for cuts 5 | Major Reductio ns |
Note: Enacted figures are approximate and based on available documents which sometimes provide total R&D or agency totals rather than specific program lines matching proposals. "Current Admin Actions/Budget (FY26)" refers to figures from 2025-dated sources reflecting ongoing policy. This table starkly illustrates the severe reductions across major science funding agencies and specific research areas.
V. Historical Parallels and Precedents: Echoes of the Past, Warnings for the Future
The policies and approaches outlined in Project 2025 and being implemented under the Trump administration do not arise in a vacuum. They have antecedents in the administration's first term, as well as deeper historical parallels concerning the consequences of defunding education, politicizing research, and suppressing intellectual freedom.
A. Trump's First Term (FY2017-FY2021): A Prelude to Project 2025
An examination of the Trump administration's first term reveals a consistent pattern of attempting to reduce federal involvement and funding in education and science, alongside rhetoric and executive actions that foreshadowed the more comprehensive and aggressive agenda of Project 2025.
Budgetary Actions: Throughout the first term, presidential budget proposals consistently called for significant cuts to the Department of Education, NIH, NSF, and EPA.29 For instance:
● The FY2018 DoE budget proposed $59 billion, a 13% decrease from the previous year's levels.34 Congress ultimately enacted a higher figure of $68.2 billion (excluding Pell Grants).35
● The FY2019 NIH budget proposed $35.5 billion 56, which was below the $36.1 billion the Senate had considered for FY2018.58 Congress, however, enacted $39.3 billion for NIH in FY2019.52
● The FY2020 DoE budget proposed $64 billion, a 10% cut 40, while the enacted budget was $72.7 billion.37 The same year's NSF budget proposed a $1 billion cut to $7.1 billion.40
● The FY2021 DoE budget proposed consolidating 29 programs into a block grant, resulting in $4.7 billion less than their combined funding.39 The overall FY2021 R&D budget proposed by the administration was $142.2 billion, an 8.8% decrease from the FY2020 enacted level.61 While Congress often resisted the full extent of these proposed cuts, appropriating higher amounts than requested, the administration's consistent efforts signaled a clear directional intent.
Executive Orders and Rhetoric: Beyond budget proposals, the first term saw executive initiatives and rhetoric that align closely with Project 2025's goals. These included efforts to promote "school choice," roll back civil rights guidance (such as those related to Title IX protections for transgender students), and a general skepticism towards research deemed "ideological".6 The "Gold Standard Science" executive order, issued in May 2025 6, explicitly states its intention to reinstate the scientific integrity policies developed during the first Trump term, indicating a continuity of approach.
Current Actions (2025): The research material, with many sources dated to early 2025, portrays the immediate and aggressive implementation of these policies. This includes an executive order facilitating the dismantling of the Department of Education 15, widespread funding freezes and grant terminations targeting universities and specific research areas 4, and new executive orders concerning "Gold Standard Science" 6 and the elimination of DEI programs.14
The consistent pattern of proposing deep cuts during the first term, even if these proposals were not fully enacted by Congress 34, reveals a persistent ideological commitment to reducing the federal footprint in education and science. Project 2025 is the strategic culmination of these earlier ambitions, now equipped with a more detailed and aggressive roadmap for implementation. This new phase leverages expanded executive power, as envisioned by the unitary executive theory and achieved through mass personnel changes, to circumvent or overpower the congressional resistance that moderated previous attempts.7 The first term, in this light, served as a testing ground for these ideas; Project 2025 is the refined playbook designed to overcome prior obstacles and achieve more radical and lasting transformations.
The speed and breadth of executive actions in early 2025 4 demonstrate a "shock and awe" strategy. This approach is rapidly remaking the federal landscape, overwhelming potential opposition before it can fully mobilize, and rendering legal challenges reactive rather than preventative. The issuance of multiple significant executive orders and agency directives—covering DoE dismantling, extensive funding freezes, and DEI bans—all within the first few months of 2025 4 aligns with Project 2025's goal of swift and decisive implementation.13 Such rapid, multi-front changes are disorienting existing oversight mechanisms and creating an illusion of irreversible momentum. This tactic is achieving de facto policy shifts quickly, thereby making subsequent reversal more difficult, even if some individual actions are later successfully challenged or overturned in the courts. The initial actions are focusing on areas where executive power is least constrained (such as direct control over federal agencies and grant-making processes) and where symbolic victories against perceived "wokeism" or "liberal elites" can be readily achieved. These early moves are establishing the administration's unwavering intent, testing the boundaries of opposition, and building momentum for the more structural and potentially more contentious legislative and budgetary battles to follow.
B. Documented Consequences of Defunding Education and Research
Historical and contemporary evidence illustrates the negative repercussions of reducing public investment in education and research.
Education: Cutting funding for education research and data collection demonstrably reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of the education system as a whole. It undermines the ability of policymakers and educators to understand which programs and interventions are successful and which are not, leading to wasted spending on untested approaches.27 The dismantling of Department of Education funding creates significant uncertainty for states and school districts, particularly impacting budget planning for rural schools, schools serving large numbers of low-income students, and the provision of services for students with disabilities.25 Such cuts are leading to tangible losses, including fewer teachers and counselors, the elimination of family engagement and mental health programs, and an inability to afford new books, technology, and other essential classroom materials.24 In higher education, disruptions to the student loan infrastructure are leading to a sharp increase in student loan defaults.24
A pertinent historical context is found in the aftermath of the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. Efforts to resist desegregation often involved attempts to defund integrated public schools, frequently by diverting public funds to private "segregation academies" or through the promotion of voucher schemes.31 The motivation was clearly to maintain racial segregation, and the consequence was severely diminished resources for public schools, predominantly those serving African American and other marginalized communities.
The argument that reducing federal education funding and oversight promotes "efficiency" 21 is directly challenged by evidence indicating that federal investment in education research and data collection actually improves efficiency. By funding bodies like the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the federal government helps identify effective educational practices and prevents wasteful spending on unproven or ineffective methods.27 Cutting this research capacity means that schools and districts are more likely to invest in "untested interventions," which is inherently inefficient.27 Thus, the "efficiency" argument advanced by proponents of DoE dismantling appears to be a pretext for ideologically motivated cuts. Ironically, these cuts are leading to less efficient and effective education spending at state and local levels due to the absence of robust, evidence-based guidance and comparative national data.
The historical parallel of resistance to desegregation through the defunding of public schools 31 offers a sobering precedent for current policies that advocate for expansive voucher systems and the general defunding of public education. These contemporary policies, often accompanied by attacks on DEI initiatives and Critical Race Theory 19, suggest that racial and socioeconomic stratification is an implicit, if not explicit, goal or at least a tolerated outcome of these policies. While proponents frame these measures in terms of "choice" and "parental rights," the historical context and the impact point towards a re-emergence of policies that will exacerbate educational inequities along racial and class lines, effectively undermining the desegregation and equal opportunity principles enshrined by Brown v. Board of Education.
Research: The consequences of defunding scientific research are equally stark.
Reductions in funding are stalling critical medical advancements, limiting opportunities for the training and development of future generations of scientists, and leading to a loss of accumulated expertise and reduced collaboration both domestically and internationally.46 The economic impact is also significant: every $1 invested in NIH research is estimated to yield $2.56 in economic activity; therefore, cuts translate directly into economic losses and job losses across various sectors.47 Analyses indicate that cuts to public R&D investment are leading to reduced GDP, stifling innovation, and suppressing private investment in research-intensive industries.51 These are not abstract economic theories but tangible negative impacts on public health, economic growth, and the nation's capacity to solve complex problems and compete globally.
C. Global Historical Examples: The Perils of Suppressing Intellectual Freedom
History offers stark warnings about the dangers of allowing political ideology to suppress intellectual freedom and dictate scientific and educational pursuits.
Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union: Perhaps one of the most notorious examples is the era of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. Trofim Lysenko, an agronomist whose theories rejected established Mendelian genetics in favor of pseudoscientific Lamarckian concepts, gained the political backing of Joseph Stalin. This led to the official denunciation of genetics, the persecution, imprisonment, and even execution of thousands of biologists who adhered to mainstream science, and the effective destruction of genetics research in the USSR for decades.64 This state-sponsored pseudoscience was driven by Stalin's desire to subordinate science to Marxist ideology and to create a "national science" isolated from the global scientific community.65 The consequences were catastrophic failures in Soviet agriculture, contributing to famines, and a long-term setback for Soviet biological sciences. Lysenkoism serves as a chilling reminder of how ideological control over science can lead to devastating practical outcomes and inflict lasting damage on a nation's scientific capacity and intellectual integrity.
Censorship Regimes: Various historical regimes, including Nazi Germany, Communist East Germany, 18th Century France under the Old Regime, and the British Raj in India, implemented extensive censorship to control the flow of information and suppress dissenting ideas.66 Methods ranged from overt acts like book burnings, imprisonment of authors and publishers, and pillaging of libraries in Nazi Germany, to more subtle systems of pre-publication review, co-option of intellectuals, and the fostering of self-censorship in East Germany and 18th Century France.66 The consequences, while varied, generally included the stifling of creativity and critical inquiry, the fueling of opposition movements, and the creation of what one source terms "visible scars" on national culture.66 Interestingly, as seen with Anthony Comstock's anti-vice crusade in the late 19th and early 20th century United States, aggressive censorship can sometimes have the unintended consequence of increasing public interest in the banned materials and galvanizing support for greater freedom of expression.66 The core impact across these diverse contexts, however, is the obstruction of knowledge dissemination, the narrowing of public discourse, and the suppression of critical thought.
Standards-Based Reform Movement (US): Even educational reforms with arguably good intentions can have negative unintended consequences if they become overly prescriptive or narrow the scope of intellectual inquiry. The standards-based reform movement in the U.S., while aimed at improving academic performance and accountability, faced criticism for its heavy emphasis on standardized testing, which some argued could stifle creativity, discourage diverse pedagogical approaches, and lead to a "teaching to the test" mentality that narrowed the curriculum.67 This example highlights the delicate balance required in educational policy to ensure that efforts to improve standards do not inadvertently undermine the broader goals of fostering critical thinking, creativity, and a love of learning.
The "Gold Standard Science" initiative 6, alongside the concerted attacks on specific scientific fields such as climate science and "woke" social sciences 5, exhibits disquieting similarities to the early stages of Lysenkoism. In both scenarios, a politically favored and ideologically convenient version of "science" is promoted by state authorities over established, evidence-based disciplines. This involves the state defining what constitutes valid scientific inquiry and targeting scientists or entire research areas that dissent from the approved narrative. While the contemporary U.S. context is vastly different from the Stalinist Soviet Union, the underlying mechanism of ideological capture of the scientific enterprise and the suppression of disfavored research presents a clear historical parallel. The long-term consequences for scientific integrity, innovation, and societal well-being are severe.
Furthermore, historical examples of widespread censorship 66 demonstrate that sustained attempts to control information and restrict intellectual inquiry often lead to societal stagnation, a narrowing of perspectives, and a decline in critical thinking—all hallmarks of what might be termed a "dark age." The explicit focus within Project 2025 on combating perceived "ideological" threats in education and science 7 suggests a similar impulse to control thought and limit the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Regimes that heavily censored intellectual output, such as Nazi Germany and East Germany, did so in an attempt to engineer society according to a specific, monolithic ideology, suppressing dissenting views and promoting a singular narrative.66 Project 2025's aims to excise "noxious tenets" like Critical Race Theory and "gender ideology" from educational curricula 28, and to ensure that scientific endeavors align with administration priorities 6, reflect this historical pattern. Such efforts to control the production and dissemination of knowledge are leading to a less informed public, diminished critical thinking skills, and a reduced capacity to address complex societal problems, mirroring historical periods characterized by intellectual decline and conformity.
VI. The Unfolding Trajectory Towards a "New Dark Age"
Synthesizing the policies of Project 2025, the observed actions and rhetoric from the Trump administration (both past and those documented in 2025-dated sources), and historical precedents, a phased implementation is evident. This trajectory outlines the path towards a scenario that could be characterized by a significant regression in intellectual freedom, educational quality, scientific progress, and democratic norms.
A. Phase 1: Immediate Onslaught (First 100-180 Days - Ongoing)
The initial period of the Trump administration, guided by Project 2025, is characterized by a rapid and forceful assertion of executive power aimed at immediate disruption and the establishment of new operational realities.
● Executive Actions: A primary tool is a barrage of executive orders. These are targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across all federal agencies and federally-funded educational institutions, effectively banning or severely curtailing such programs.14 Directives are being issued to commence the dismantling of the Department of Education, transferring its functions or preparing for its eventual closure.15 Simultaneously, an executive order implementing the principles of "Gold Standard Science" has been promulgated, setting new rules for federal research conduct and integrity.6
● Personnel Changes: A swift and extensive overhaul of personnel in key agency positions is a central component of Project 2025. This involves the rapid installation of individuals loyal to the administration's agenda in leadership roles within the Department of Education, NIH, NSF, EPA, DOJ, and other critical agencies. Selection criteria prioritize ideological alignment and commitment to the Project 2025 platform over traditional qualifications like expertise or non-partisan experience.7 This is accompanied by the dismissal of career civil servants deemed "rogue bureaucrats" or insufficiently loyal.11
● Funding Freezes and Grant Reviews: Federal funding for research and education is being immediately weaponized. This involves freezes on existing grants and contracts, particularly those awarded to universities and researchers perceived as ideologically misaligned with the administration. Justifications for such actions include reviews related to alleged antisemitism on campuses, the presence of DEI programs, or the nature of specific research topics deemed controversial or "wasteful".4 Grants considered ideologically unsound or not contributing to prioritized areas are facing termination.5
● Rhetoric and Intimidation: This phase is accompanied by intensified public rhetoric from the administration and its allies, targeting academic institutions, scientific bodies, and specific fields of research or scholarship. This rhetoric is creating a climate of fear, uncertainty, and intimidation, discouraging dissent and encouraging self-censorship within the education and research communities.4
The primary objective of this initial phase is the creation of rapid, visible disruption across the federal landscape. By asserting dominance through swift and broad actions, the administration signals a radical departure from previous norms and attempts to overwhelm potential opposition. The sheer speed and scope of changes across multiple fronts—education, science, civil rights, agency staffing—are designed to be disorienting, making it difficult for opponents to coordinate effective responses and allowing the administration to claim early "victories" in line with its populist mandate. The psychological impact on career civil servants, academics, and scientists is a key element of this strategy, intended to induce compliance, resignation, or at least a hesitant reluctance to challenge the new order.
These initial actions are concentrating on areas where executive power is least constrained, such as direct control over federal agencies and the grant-making process. Symbolic victories against perceived "wokeism" or "liberal elites"—like banning DEI programs 14 or targeting specific university grants 4—are relatively straightforward executive actions that resonate strongly with the administration's political base. These early moves are establishing the administration's unwavering intent, testing the limits of institutional and public opposition, and building crucial momentum for the more complex and potentially more controversial structural changes planned for subsequent phases.
B. Phase 2: Entrenching Control (Years 1-2 - Unfolding)
Following the initial shock, the focus is shifting towards consolidating power and embedding the new agenda more deeply within the structures of government and society.
● Aggressive Budget Implementation: The administration is vigorously pushing for congressional approval of the drastic budget cuts outlined in its FY26 proposals for the Department of Education, NIH, NSF, EPA, and other agencies.5 If Congress resists these cuts, the administration is resorting to controversial measures such as the impoundment of appropriated funds to achieve its defunding objectives unilaterally.12
● Legislative Agenda: A key focus is on advancing a legislative agenda designed to codify the administration's policy preferences. This includes efforts to pass laws that formally dismantle or restructure agencies like the Department of Education and NOAA, enact federal "parental rights" legislation to grant greater control over K-12 curriculum, restrict existing civil rights protections (particularly for LGBTQ+ individuals and racial minorities), and reform the higher education accreditation system to align with conservative principles.7
● Increased Pressure on Institutions: Educational institutions, from K-12 schools to universities, are facing escalating direct financial and political pressure. They are being pushed to eliminate DEI programs, alter curricula to remove content deemed objectionable (such as Critical Race Theory or discussions of gender identity), restrict academic freedom on disfavored topics, and actively demonstrate ideological alignment with the administration's values.4 Challenges to academic tenure and the principles of academic freedom are becoming more frequent and intense.
● Politicization of Accreditation and Standards: The administration is seeking to reshape higher education accreditation bodies to reflect its ideological goals. This involves recognizing alternative, potentially less rigorous accreditors, or empowering states to bypass traditional accreditation processes altogether.21 Such moves are undermining national standards of educational quality and could lead to a proliferation of institutions offering substandard degrees, further eroding public trust in higher education.
● Weakening of Civil Rights Enforcement: The dismantling of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the Department of Education and other federal civil rights enforcement mechanisms is continuing. This is accompanied by efforts to redefine legal definitions of discrimination to exclude or downplay the concept of disparate impact (where policies, even if not intentionally discriminatory, have a disproportionately negative effect on protected groups). Civil rights laws are also being weaponized to challenge and dismantle efforts by institutions to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.19
The legislative efforts undertaken in this second phase are serving to codify and make more permanent the executive actions implemented during the initial onslaught. This represents a critical shift from temporary disruption to enduring structural transformation, making the changes significantly harder for future administrations or judicial action to reverse. While Phase 1 relies heavily on the exercise of executive power, which can be more readily challenged or undone, Phase 2 involves passing formal legislation—for example, to authorize the dismantling of the Department of Education 15 or to enact a federal "Parents' Bill of Rights".28 Legislation provides a far more durable foundation for policy changes, signaling a strategic intent to move from immediate, potentially reversible shocks to long-term, systemic alterations in the governance of education and science.
The combined pressures stemming from severe funding cuts, sustained political attacks, and ideologically motivated "reforms" to accreditation are forcing many public and private educational institutions into a defensive, survival-oriented posture. In such an environment, institutions are feeling compelled to prioritize compliance with administrative dictates and the adoption of uncontroversial programming over the pursuit of academic rigor, groundbreaking innovation, and critical intellectual inquiry.4 To survive, institutions are curtailing programs perceived as politically risky, silencing or marginalizing dissenting faculty voices, and adopting "safe" curricula that avoid contentious topics. This is leading to a widespread homogenization and de-intellectualization of education, diminishing its capacity to foster critical thinking and prepare students for a complex world.
C. Phase 3: The "New Dark Age" Materializes (Years 2-4 and Beyond - Emerging)
The cumulative effect of the policies implemented in the preceding phases, if unchecked, is leading to a scenario that aligns with the user's framing of a "new dark age," characterized by a significant decline in intellectual vitality, scientific progress, and democratic health.
● Entrenched Ideological Control: Curricula in K-12 schools and higher education institutions are becoming significantly narrowed, heavily reflecting the administration's prevailing ideology. This involves widespread censorship of historical narratives, scientific concepts (particularly climate science and evolution), and social studies content deemed incompatible with this ideology.21 Research agendas in universities and federal labs are heavily skewed towards politically approved topics, with funding and support withdrawn from areas considered controversial or non-priority.5
● Decline in Critical Research and Innovation: The U.S. is experiencing a
significant drop in research output and innovation in fundamental science, climate research, public health, and the social sciences. This decline is leading to a loss of global leadership in key areas of scientific and technological advancement that depend on open inquiry and robust public funding.18
● Accelerated Brain Drain: The hostile environment for intellectual freedom and
the drastic cuts to research support are leading to a sustained exodus of talented scientists, scholars, and students from the United States. These individuals are seeking opportunities in countries offering greater academic freedom, more stable funding, and a more welcoming intellectual climate.18
● Erosion of Public Trust in Knowledge: The aggressive politicization of science and education, coupled with the promotion of ideologically driven narratives over evidence-based findings, is
Works cited
1. accessed December 31, 1969, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/trump-defund-schools-resea rch-republicans/682742/
2. accessed December 31, 1969, https://www.heritage.org/project2025/static/2025-Mandate-for-Leadership-FULL .pdf
3. accessed December 31, 1969, https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget21/21action.xlsx
4. What to Know About Trump's Funding Threats to Colleges, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/04/18/ what-know-about-trumps-funding-threats-colleges
5. Proposed White House budget would slash science funding - C&EN, accessed May 27, 2025,
6. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump is Restoring Gold Standard ..., accessed May 27, 2025,
7. Project 2025 - Wikipedia, accessed May 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
8. Project 2025 Would Destroy the U.S. System of Checks and Balances and Create an Imperial Presidency - Center for American Progress, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-destroy-the-u-ssystem-of-checks-and-balances-and-create-an-imperial-presidency/
9. What is Project 2025? Wish list for Trump second term, explained - BBC, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
10. What is Project 2025? 8 healthcare notes - Becker's Hospital Review, accessed May 27, 2025,
11. Project 2025 and Higher Education | NEA - National Education Association, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/project-2025-and-higher-educa tion
12. Project 2025 is a threat to our democracy. Here's how funding accountability work can help., accessed May 27, 2025,
https://democracyfund.org/idea/project-2025-is-a-threat-to-our-democracy-her es-how-funding-accountability-work-can-help/
13. Project 2025 - Democracy Forward, accessed May 27, 2025, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-05_Peoples-G uide-Pro-2025.pdf
14. President Trump's First 100 Days: Education in America | U.S. Department of Education, accessed May 27, 2025,
15. How Trump's policies and Project 2025 proposals match up after first 100 days - CBS News, accessed May 27, 2025,
16. Project 2025 Outlines Possible Future for Science Agencies - AIP.ORG, accessed May 27, 2025,
17. Judge blocks Trump's orders to dismantle the Education Department and fire employees - AP News, accessed May 27, 2025,
18. Scientists have lost their jobs or grants in US cuts. Foreign universities want to hire them - AP News, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://apnews.com/article/trump-research-funding-cuts-brain-drain-f1ac9fe5c8 a90f5d5ec9b2726475e10e
19. Project 2025: What's At Stake for Education, accessed May 27, 2025, https://civilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Project-2025-Education.pdf 20. 2025 Trump's Executive Order To Dismantle The Education Department Was
Inspired By The Heritage Foundation's Decades-long Disapproval Of The Agency
- UMBC, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://umbc.edu/stories/executive-order-to-dismantle-the-education-departme nt-inspired-by-decades-of-heritage-foundationss-disapproval/
21. PROJECT 2025: CHAPTER ON EDUCATION, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.caledattorney.com/post/project-2025-chapter-on-education
22. Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and ..., accessed May 27, 2025,
23. Project 2025: Threats to Education - The Thurgood Marshall Institute at LDF, accessed May 27, 2025,
24. How Gutting the U.S. Department of Education Would Hurt Students and Their Families, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/how-gutting-the-u-s-department-of-educati on-would-hurt-students-and-their-families/
25. Cutting education is an 'America last' not an 'America first' approach - Brookings Institution, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/cutting-education-is-an-america-last-not-an -america-first-approach/
26. WHO PAYS THE PRICE?: THE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF DEFUNDING EDUCATION - The Buccaneer, accessed May 27, 2025,
27. Cutting research funding would make education less effective and ..., accessed May 27, 2025,
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/cutting-research-funding-would-make-educa tion-less-effective-and-efficient/
28. Project 2025 - PEN America, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pen.org/report/project-2025/
29. Four Ways Trump's Budget Proposal Slashes Public School Funding | NEA, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/four-ways-trumps-budget-prop osal-slashes-public-school-funding
30. Project 2025, Explained | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/project-2025-explained
31. Revisiting Brown v. Board of Education – 70 Years Later | NEA, accessed May 27, 2025,
32. Executive Orders, Legal Challenges, and Funding Cuts Impact Public Schools, Students, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://www.slj.com/story/Executive-Orders-Legal-Challenges-Funding-Cuts-Imp acting-Public-Schools-students
33. The People's Guide to Project 2025 - Democracy Forward, accessed May 27,
34. FACT SHEET: President Trump's FY 2018 Budget - Department of Education, accessed May 27, 2025,
35. www.ed.gov, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget18/18action.pdf
36. www.ed.gov, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget19/19action.pdf
37. www.ed.gov, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget20/20action.pdf
38. Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: FY2021 Appropriations - Congress.gov, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R46859/R46859.5.pdf
39. President's FY 2021 Budget Analysis Breakdown - National Conference of State Legislatures, accessed May 27, 2025,
40. President Donald Trump's Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request, Congressional
Response and Links to Federal Agency Budget Information - University of
California | Office of The President, accessed May 27, 2025,
41. IMPACT OF THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2020 BUDGET ON K-12 EDUCATION - First Focus on Children, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://firstfocus.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FACT-SHEET-Presidents-FY20 -Budget-K-12-Education.pdf
42. McMahon Defends President Trump's 'Skinny' Budget and ED's 'Restructuring' at House Appropriations Hearing - nasfaa, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/36360/McMahon_Defends_President_Trump_ s_Skinny_Budget_and_ED_s_Restructuring_at_House_Appropriations_Hearing
43. Science policy this week: May 5, 2025 - AIP.ORG, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.aip.org/fyi/the-week-of-may-5-2025
44. Trump halts new NIH grants to international health-research partners - Science|Business, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://sciencebusiness.net/news/clinical-trials/trump-halts-new-nih-grants-inter national-health-research-partners
45. The Trump administration's NIH and FDA cuts will negatively impact patients, accessed May 27, 2025,
46. The Real-World Impact of Research Funding Cuts - LSU, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.lsu.edu/blog/2025/02/25-nih-chung.php
47. Data-Driven, Interactive Map Shows Local Economic Impact of Cuts to Federal Funding for Health Research - Annenberg School for Communication - University of Pennsylvania, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/data-driven-interactive-map-sho ws-local-economic-impact-cuts-federal-funding-health-research
48. The mystery of Trump's science cuts - POLITICO, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2025/05/22/trump-scien ce-nsf-funding-ostp-kratsios-00365938
49. Documenting Trump's “Arbitrary” Cuts to Science - Inside Higher Ed, accessed May 27, 2025,
50. April 3, 2025 M-25-21 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES FROM: R~ssell T. Vought \\ 1 \ Director \J - The White House, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/M-25-21-Accelerating
51. Cutting Public R&D Would Slash U.S. GDP, Innovation, and Industry Growth, New Report Warns - Pharma's Almanac, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://www.pharmasalmanac.com/articles/cutting-public-rd-would-slash-us-gd p-innovation-and-industry-growth-new-report-warns
52. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding: FY1994-FY2020 - Every CRS Report, accessed May 27, 2025,
53. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding: FY1994-FY2020 - Every CRS Report, accessed May 27, 2025,
54. The National Science Foundation: FY2018 Appropriations and Funding History, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45009
55. The National Science Foundation: An Overview | Congress.gov, accessed May 27,
56. SUMMARY OF 2019 BUDGET REQUEST - Federal Relations, accessed May 27, 2025,
57. apnews.com, accessed May 27, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/big-beautiful-bill-trump-tax-cuts-medicaid-00ce1ff8a 7b7fea7a894d38398748c6b
58. President Trump Releases FY 2019 Budget Proposal - AAMC, accessed May 27, 2025,
https://www.aamc.org/advocacy-policy/washington-highlights/president-trump-r eleases-fy-2019-budget-proposal
59. U.S. Department of Education Budget News | U.S. Department of ..., accessed May 27, 2025,
60. Sizable Growth in Federal Budget Authority for R&D Evident for the FYs 2017–21 Period; Further Increase Proposed for FY 2022 | NSF, accessed May 27, 2025, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22322
61. Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2021 - Congress.gov, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46341
62. Budget, Performance and Financial Reporting - About NSF, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget
63. www.ed.gov, accessed May 27, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget17/17action.pdf
64. en.wikipedia.org, accessed May 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#:~:text=Genetics%20was%20eventually %20banned%20in,death%20of%20Stalin%20in%201953.
65. Lysenkoism Against Genetics: The Meeting of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences of August 1948, Its Background, Causes, and Aftermath - PubMed Central, accessed May 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6499510/
66. Censorship - Intellectual Freedom - LibGuides at University of ..., accessed May
67. Education Reform Movements | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed May 27, 2025,
Comments