A technical report on the impacts of federal policies since January 20, 2025 on Ecology, evolution and marine science: Summer 2025

Cite: American Society of Naturalists. A technical report on the impacts of federal policies since January 20, 2025 on Ecology, evolution and marine science: Summer 2025. Published August 25, 2025 at https://www.firsthandaccounts.org/impacts/2025-july-survey. Date accessed: [enter today's date].

Key Takeaways

• A number of actions of the executive branch of the US federal government, starting on January 20 2025, resulted in massive restructuring of the federal workforce and changes to historical norms. To understand these impacts, a survey was distributed to tens of thousands of members of scientific societies in the fields of ecology, evolution, and marine science.

• Almost 1400 members participated in the survey. Respondents to the survey were geographically distributed across the US and spread across career stages, as well as spread across academia, the federal government, non-profits, and industry.

• Our results show evidence that federal policies have caused disruptions to research that supports Americans interests such as food security, flood mitigation, infectious diseases, and wildlife. Direct cuts or uncertainty caused by the threat of cuts caused disruption to summer data collection projects and long-term monitoring programs.

• Respondents reported restrictions on free speech and travel, chilling effects on free speech and travel, censorship of scientific terms, concerns about the ability of the government to comply with legal mandates, reports of biased or removed information from federal sources, and concerns about the future of long-standing federal programs such as the Bird Banding Lab.

• There were many reports of declines in government efficiency and loss of institutional knowledge in the federal workforce as a result of the Reduction in Force, such as delayed funding decisions, delays in collaborative research, and increased waste associated with the cancellation of projects that were in progress. Some respondents reported a breakdown in historical collaborations among the federal government, state governments, academia, non profits, and/or industry. 

• Quantitative survey data show the importance of federally funded training programs to the development of scientists. Participants reported that federal cuts and uncertainty caused a severe narrowing of the job market, cancellations of undergraduate training programs, cuts to graduate admission programs by universities, rescinded offers, and cuts to merit-based fellowship programs. Respondents from different career stages were concerned about an early career bottleneck and the long-term repercussions for the field. 

• Respondents who thought the harm was already irreparable cited disruptions to time-sensitive data collection or training opportunities, damaged career prospects, and harm to constituents caused by loss of institutional knowledge in the federal government.

• The survey delivers the first systematic evaluation of how policy changes have disrupted scientific work that supports American interests and serves the public good.

Infographic

About the survey

A number of actions of the executive branch of the US federal government, starting on January 20 2025, resulted in massive restructuring of the federal workforce and changes to historical norms. To understand these impacts, the American Society of Naturalists developed a survey and invited scientific societies in the field of ecology, evolution, and marine science to participate. The survey and research plan was provided to the executive boards of participating societies for feedback, and the final version was approved by participating societies and by Northeastern's Institutional Review Board (IRB# 25-03-14). The survey questions did not assume that all impacts were harmful, and included options to indicate whether impacts were negative, neutral, or positive.

The survey was distributed by societies directly to their members via email between June 8 and July 17 2025. The survey was sent to a total of 35,166 society members (some members belonged to multiple societies, so the actual number of unique recipients is unknown). We received 1742 responses total. After filtering out responses with low reCaptcha scores, responses that were flagged as duplicates, and respondents that completed less than 30% of the survey, 1392 participants were used for analysis. Not every participant answered every question, and the number of respondents for each question is shown below. 

DEMOGRAPHICS of Participants

There was broad representation in survey responses, with participants from multiple scientific societies, every US state, and most US Territories. Participants were spread across career stages and worked in government, academic, non profit, and industry (Figure 1), See "Data Availability" for the full report of demographic data.

Figure 1: Career stage and affiliation type.

Impacts of federal and state policies

Figure 2. Most respondents reported that federal policies caused uncertainty about the future (85% of respondents) and increased stress and anxiety (79%). Almost half of respondents reported being impacted by a chilling effect on free speech (48%), funding freezes (48%), cuts to the federal workforce (46%), and budget cuts (46%). About a third of respondents reported being affected by changes to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies (38%), hiring freezes (36%), cuts or threats of cuts to indirect costs (36%), concerns about human rights violations (35%). A proportion of respondents were affected by changes to international research and funding (25%), deletion of public data (21%), restrictions on research (20%), cancellations of solicitations (19%), cancellations of an awarded grant (17%), and cancellation of a training program or internship (14%). Threats to visa status were reported by 8% of respondents (117 respondents) and 1% of respondents reported visa revocation (18 respondents). A percentage of respondents reported no negative impact to them or their research (6%).

Figure 2: Impacts of federal and state policies since January 20, 2025

Figure 3. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree and direction of the impact of federal and state policies since January 20, 2025 on the categories of: “Impact on my field of science”, “Impact on my Department and Institution”, “Impact on my research”, “Impact on my career prospects”, and “Impact on my personal life”. A percentage of respondents reported positive impacts in each category (~1-2%). 83% of respondents said that federal policies since Jan 20, 2025 had "extremely negative impact" or "irreparable harm" on their field of science (Figure 3, top row). 83% of the respondents also reported that the effects on their department/institution were slightly negative to extremely negative, with 8% reporting no impact and 8% reporting irreparable harm (Figure 3, second row). Most respondents reported slightly negative to extremely negative effects on their research (76%) and career prospects (71%), with about 20% reporting no impact and 5-8% reporting irreparable harm in both categories (Figure 3, third and forth rows). A majority of respondents reported slightly negative to extremely negative effects on their personal life (83%), with 7% reporting irreparable harm and 9% reporting no impact (Figure 3, fifth row). 

Figure 3: Degree and direction of impacts. 

Importance of Federal Training Programs

Figure 4: Most respondents reported that US federal training programs were important to their development as scientists, with 71% reporting it was "very important" or "extremely important", 16% saying it was "somewhat important", and 13% reporting it was "not important".

Figure 4: Importance of federal training programs

Proportion of salary from federal grants

Respondents were asked to report the proportion of their salary that came from federal grants. The percent of participants salaries that came from federal grants varied from 0 to 100, with an overall average of 46% (median 33%) of respondent's salaries coming from federal funds. The percent of salary for early career researchers was an average of 63-75% (median 70-99%) from federal funds for graduate students and postdocs. The percent of salary from federal funds varied for non-profit researchers (mean of 40%, median 25%), untenured academic faculty (mean of 28%, median of 18%), tenured faculty (mean of 15%, median of 10%), and industry (mean of 24%, median of 3%).

Open-Ended Responses

Participants were asked to describe the impacts of federal and state policies since Jan 20, 2025 on their research, department, or institution. Participants were given the option to allow the investigators to de-identify and quote their narrative anonymously for publication. 760 participants submitted an open-end text response (Figure 5) and of those, 757 were longer than 3 characters. Of the text responses longer than 3 characters, 636 gave permission to quote their narrative anonymously for publication, 112 gave permission to use their narrative for analysis but to not quote them for publication, and the remaining 9 chose "not applicable" or left the question blank.

The responses presented below were de-identified to minimize the risk that the identity of a participant could be determined from their response. Specific names, places, dates, and pronouns were replaced with vague identifiers if, in combination with other information in the narrative, the information could be used to identify a specific person. In some cases, acronyms were spelled out for clarity. Spelling and grammatical errors were not edited. 

In the narratives reported below, edits made to de-identify the narratives are indicated in a square bracket [].

Figure 5: Word Cloud of open-ended responses

Themes in open-ended responses

In the open-ended responses, many participants commented on disruptions to their research, restricted freedoms, disruption of training programs, loss of jobs, concerns about a severe early career bottleneck, declines in government efficiency and expertise, why uncertainty makes it difficult to conduct research, and why their research was important to society. Some participants expressed concern about being able to complete work for legal mandates. Some participants commented on ways that specific policies could have positive impacts, while also expressing concern that overall policies have been harmful to the field.  Because categorizing responses into themes is somewhat subjective, we do not report the absolute number of responses in each category below. In addition, many narratives crossed multiple themes, which made it difficult to categorize them. Rather, responses are provided as examples of the lived experiences of participants under each theme. Please note that responses represent the viewpoint of the respondents, and does not imply endorsement by the societys who participated in this survey.

Disruption of Research with Societal Importance

Disruption of research and scientific collaboration, or fear thereof, was a common theme in the open-ended responses. Respondents commented on the importance of their research (that was being disrupted) to manage endangered species, to maximize the production of natural resources including agriculture and fisheries, to support wildlife, to manage invasive species, to understand climate change, to support stakeholders, to improve efficiency, assessing impacts of development, and to fulfill the obligation of the government to protect species and wildlife. Disruptions resulted from firing or restrictions placed on a scientist or their collaborator in the federal government, cancellation or freezing of funds, immigration or visa issues for project personnel, and a high level of uncertainty that made planning difficult. Some examples of disrupted research include:

• "I work in wildlife research that protects both agriculture and public health. My team was awarded [a specific type of] funding to develop and test tools to respond to a [specific disease] that threatens to devastate the pork industry. This work is vital to ensuring food security for the country. Despite having the expertise, infrastructure, and urgency to act, we were stopped in our tracks. The funding freeze and administrative restrictions made it impossible to move forward. We had a clear mandate, but no ability to fulfill it....In many ways, this harm is irreparable." 

• "The cancellation of funding and the removal of solicitations has had a massive impact on my ability to function as conservation biologist and my ability to plan for the future... Scientists from federal and state and local agencies rely on me and my lab to provide analytical services and expertise to aid with on-going endangered species conservation efforts."

• "...we work with HIV. My new work group is painfully aware of the budget cuts that have occurred or may occur with the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill, as not just their jobs may be on the line but all of the work they have done since the 1980s to treat and prevent HIV. We are at risk of causing a rapid rise in new infections of HIV if funding for prevention and treatment get cut."

• "Our non-profit organization uses science-based information to teach the public about wolves. With less researchers funded, this will directly impact our mission if information is not available or outdated. This is a direct impact on resources for the public to make informed decisions when it comes to wolf-human relationships."

• "My research examines the impacts of sea level rise and nutrient pollution on salt marshes. Salt marshes provide numerous benefits to humans: they act as nurseries for fish and shellfish, they filter water that could otherwise pollute estuaries, they buffer coastal communities against extreme weather events, and they store more carbon on a per area basis than any terrestrial ecosystem. The local community where I work is engaged in this research because they saw how houses were protected by salt marshes during a devastating hurricane...The NOAA grants that funded much of my research have been cut. Moreover, this research examines the impact of two global change threats on salt marshes. We are not able to talk about or address global change issues in our grant proposals. Most of the world population lives in coastal communities. If we cannot address the threats to these systems, we risk not only losing valuable fisheries, but human lives."

• "My collaborators and I obtained a [specific NSF] grant to develop network models to address marine ecosystem response to climate change and species invasions... [Our grant was running out and] we ready to submit a very strong proposal [to continue the work]. However, the solicitation was permanently archived... There was much energy, time, and resources invested in us getting to this point of having a great proposal to work in these critically important upwelling systems for our food security, which are the four most important upwelling regions on the planet. They account for less than 1% of our global coasts but produce 25% of our seafood. This project won't have an outlet to be funded in the current federal funding landscape."

• "I work in marine science and aquaculture. This administration has cut funding for the most crucial breeding resource for oyster aquaculture via USDA cuts and "probationary employee" firings. This administration has also frozen funding for a NOAA Sea Grant opportunity that we were in the second of two years, which seeks to commercialize endemic sustainable species for US [regoional] Coast Aquaculture. This is especially ironic because this is in parallel with the EO to increase US aquaculture and fisheries, which our grant explicitly tries to do."

• "I had a significant amount of funding in a federal grant that had one more year to go and the funds were clawed back. As a result half of the work we were going to do on a major invasive species had to be stopped. I am only able to fund my postdoc for the next 6 months and then I have to let [them] go. This work was very important for helping grape growers deal with a major economic pest (invasive species) and now the work cannot be done as planned."

• "I do a lot of endangered species research and monitoring that has been federally funded by USFWS, [Bureau of Reclamation], [Bureau of Land Management], US Forest Service, and various programs, including the [name redacted to protect anonyminity] Project. Due to grant cancellations, federal grant program cancellations or freezes, and lack of opportunities for future federal funding, we have now ceased some long-running monitoring projects that have informed management and, therefore, will impact our ability to manage the species."

• "I was a writing an international collaborative grant that would address the spread and impacts of two invasive species that are of high public concern. Increasing our understanding of these species would provide direct economic benefits to those impacted and would also improve our ability to detect future invasive species of concern. This funding call has also been archived. A lack of funding from national grants makes my tenure prospects less certain."

• "As a scientist in a museum, the most direct impact felt with the constantly changing policies since Jan 20, 2025 has been the loss of funding for upcoming museum and archive projects, as well as for exhibits that would have employed content experts on short term contracts. Loss of opportunities through IMLS [Institute for Museum and Library Services] also mean that several proposals that were in the works that would have improved long term storage, data management, and data accessibility, have been halted with no alternative routes for potential funding."

See Data Availability to read these and additional narratives in their entirety.

Jobs, Early Career Bottleneck, and Career Progress

Jobs was a common theme in the responses. Respondents of all career levels were concerned about a severe early career bottleneck, citing direct cuts to training programs, cuts to graduate program admissions or non-federal positions in response to federal cuts, lack of job opportunities, increased competition for jobs, revoked offers, and better opportunities in other countries. Many self-identified early career respondents expressed personal concern about their career trajectory, from recent graduates looking for jobs to untenured professors worried about promotion. Some self-identified government employees wrote about their experience with the federal Reduction In Force. Respondents spoke to the effects of canceling training programs, particularly canceling of Americorps, Research Experience for Undergraduates, and a severe reduction in Graduate Research Fellowship Program awards to biology, and cuts to the Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Programs in Biology.

• "Industry biotech, pharma, & life sciences job markets are in turmoil. While many of these companies themselves may be doing fine, people seeking employment are not."

• "The abrupt funding cuts are causing jobs to be lost, decreasing the development of the workforce, with fewer people gaining technical skills, and disrupting careers which all can have impacts to the local economy. Finally, the scaling back of these programs causes our institute, and research institutes across the nation, to be less competitive to other nation's institutes. The funding cuts and uncertainty generated by recent federal policies is likely going to lead to a brain drain as the most innovative and skilled people from other countries reconsider choosing to work in the US while some of our best minds choose to leave. I personally know a half-dozen US citizens considering other countries as their next career step. Part of what made the US a superpower was how much of a technological and innovative hub our country is which is heavily reliant on the backbone of our research institutes. As we gut this backbone, we will cede this advantage to other countries."

• "It is terrifying to see the loss of scientific expertise that is draining out of the US right now. It is so much like watching how Lysenkoism destroyed biological research in the USSR."

• "Multiple training grants for underrepresented students have been terminated. This directly impacts students that I supervise that received stipends through these programs and who are no longer receiving money. One of the main reasons students of color and low-income students remain underrepresented is that they need to work to support themselves and/or their families. Paying students relieves one of the main barriers to entry into the field. Terminating these training programs directly harms students and will result in the field returning to one of primarily affluent, majoritarian participants."

• "I work at a minority serving institution. I am required to increase diversity in my discipline. My REU [Research Experience for Undergraduates] program, which I have been running for [around 20] years will not be renewed. We will have a difficult time recruiting and training the next generation of scientists because of federal anti-science policies. This will affect the quality of life in the US for generations."

• "Multiple undergraduate advisees (at least three) had, but then lost, federally funded internships (USGS, REUs, Green Corps) for 2025. Alumni are losing federal jobs and are reaching out as they try to restart scientific careers. Generally, the job and graduate school prospects for emerging scientists are deteriorating as non-profits and state agencies trim costs in response to the federal landscape. We are seeing the beginning of an exodus from scientific careers for undergraduates in STEM."

• "Because of changed federal policies surrounding DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] and my institution's interpretation/response to them, a mentorship program I ran with the goal of supporting women and gender minorities in my field and related fields was shut down. Even though all were welcome to apply, apparently the goal of "supporting women" is no longer allowed."

• "We partner closely with NPS [National Park Service]  for our research and management activities, and our local NPS agency has been severely impacted by budget cuts and firings. Our agency is scrambling to try to support them for things like extra staff support on management and maintenance tasks while dealing with our own impacts. My team lost two AmeriCorps fellows this year who were already taking on additional responsibilities due to the hiring freeze, so most of the projects they were working on simply aren't being done now. I work in a federal park so this means that the cuts to my agency and to NPS also affect their experience here in terms of short term impacts like more trash or less clean facilities and fewer volunteer opportunities, to long term impacts like less restoration work or invasive species control."

• "My entire department hired just one graduate student this year, because although our funding has not yet been cut, the threat that it might be cut means that we cannot commit to paying graduate students in future; so the threat of funding cuts has essentially the same effect as actual funding cuts, because it makes it impossible to plan or to commit to future expenditures."

See Data Availability to read these and additional narratives in their entirety.

Restricted Freedoms

Many respondents commented on how policies have outright restricted freedom to travel or use specific scientific terms, have caused censorship (or encouragement of self-censorship) of their scientific work by a non-federal institution, or have had a chilling effect on the freedom to travel (particularly for visa holders), teach accurate information, and speak freely. 

Restrictions on speech and travel

• One self-identified federal worker said they were not to travel and provided a list of banned words from their agency: "Travel to meetings is canceled. Travel to field sites and/or to speak with stakeholders is either not possible or more difficult. Scientists are also facing various forms of censorship. USDA-ARS [US Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service] provided a one page sheet filled with ~167 words that aren't to be written about...The banned word list is a clear attempt by the administration to censor content, restrict our intellectual freedom, and limit our ability to objectively interpret and share our research with the public. The administration is attempting to curtail speech and restrict information available to the public. The administration appears to be trying to replace evidence-based policy with policy-based evidence where they start with conclusions and shore those up with cherrypicked research &/or opinions by industry and/or pseudoscientists." The banned words included scientific terms like: "climate, climate change, climate science, climate variability, global warming, carbon cycle, greenhouse gas emission, methane emission...clean energy, alternative energy, hydropower, geothermal, solar energy, solar power, photovoltaic, agrivoltaic, wind energy, nuclear energy, bioenergy, ethanol, diesel, pyrolysis... electric vehicle, hydrogen vehicle, fuel cell, low-emission vehicle... affordable home, low-income housing, subsidized housing, housing affordability... runoff, microplastics, water pollution, air pollution, groundwater pollution, pollution abatement, sediment remediation, PFAS, PFOA, PCB, nonpoint source pollution, water treatment, water storage, water management, rural water, agricultural water, water conservation, water quality, clean water, safe drinking water." This respondent also pointed out that rule changes "may have a chilling effect on free speech of federal scientists and will likely increase bias and decrease objectivity when it comes to topics on or adjacent to banned word list."

•  Another self-identified federal worker, who discussed declines in government efficiency and why people take low-paying federal jobs in the service of the public good, also commented on restricted travel and freedom of speech: "First, our number of purchase cards at our office was cut in half, and our travel cards (and some purchase cards) were reduced to $1, thus drastically reducing the amount of materials we could purchase and put a halt on travel for scientific conferences....My work involved coding models of wildlife disease and invasive species spread, but a new software surveillance program kept me from fitting these models... As part of the executive order allegedly to "protect women", we received a list of words and phrases we were not allowed to use in our published work, including "sex", "gender", and "diversity". Many of the words on this list are standard in natural resources and wildlife science, and this list inhibited us to accurately and succinctly report our science to the public. Many of the words and phrases on the list are related to LGBTQIA+ identities and concepts, and [a queer scientists that I know] felt personally threatened by the order not to use this language, and as though [they]  needed to hide [their] identity at work to stay safe."

• Another self-identified federal worker said travel was banned even when it did not cost the government: "USGS banned travel to scientific meetings or even meetings with collaborators even if at no cost to federal government...Purchasing cards spending levels were set to $1 such that safety officers could not purchase safety equipment for ongoing fieldwork."

• Another respondent, who we do not have permission to quote, said that due to travel restrictions they could not perform their congressionally mandated monitoring for the National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring program (a program slated for dissolution under the restructuring plan), and this disrupted a multi-decade dataset.

• A self-identified contractor reported removal of non-discrimination clauses from contracts by DOGE: "I am a contractor at a research focused federal agency that has been heavily impacted. We lost many staff (at least 20%) who left voluntarily, and others were laid off (not sure how many). We have been scrambling to finish projects as people are leaving...As a contractor, DOGE has reviewed our contract each time more money needs allocated (every couple months). Thankfully, we have avoided being laid off each time, but we keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Their most recent contract review, they requested removal of verbiage from the contract about non-discrimination in hiring and salary. So to be clear, now our contracts now allow for discrimination."

Other respondents reported travel restrictions and restrictions on communication:

• "...travel restrictions were placed on myself and others at my institution preventing the possibility of field research"

• "Trying to schedule an informational meeting with an agency outside our Department, but they are not allowed to meet with anyone outside their Department without expressed permission.  We are still waiting to hear if they can meet with us.   How does the government work on broad societal problems if agencies cannot even speak with each other?"

• "Our university administration has severely limited out-of-state travel, which impacts our ability to share our research and network/learn from colleagues regionally and nationally at conferences and meetings."

As well as being instructed to remove information:

• "We have been instructed to remove certain words or language from grant proposals, scientific publications and presentations, and reports. We have also been forced to reprioritize research activities to focus on the new administration's priorities regardless of our own scientific interests or where our science is leading us."

• "I also was required to change the language in my abstract to remove any reference to DEI-language. My grant is not centered around DEI but rather studies aggression in fish so it's clear that the need to change the language was simply a result to check a box as any human who read the grant could clearly see that the grants' goals were not directly related to any DEI initiative."

Chilling effects on speech and travel

Respondents reported how policies have a chilling effect on international travel:

• "as a visa holder, I am worried about leaving the US to travel to international conferences or visit my family."

• "I have found that because of the uncertainty around how they will be treated with the US, the Canadian researchers are no longer comfortable conducting collaborative work in the US, and we are working towards moving all of our experiments to Canada so that we can continue our collaborations."

• "International collaborators are scared and/or refuse to visit due to fear of being detained for no reason- which takes away so much knowledge sharing and learning on top of making international relations in science extremely challenging." 

• A state worker lamented restrictions to travel to visit their spouse's family: "I am a veteran [from a specific branch of the miliary] and my [spouse] is an American citizen; however, born in China.  Being an employee for the State of Texas [specific employer], I have been told that I am not allowed to travel to China for personal reasons to visit with my [spouse]'s family.  Interestingly, the [specific branch of the military] does not care - just the State of Texas says no travel to China.  This is a violation of personal rights, which I fought for as a veteran, but Texas is such a Trump supporter now I do not get my own freedoms.  This country needs to wake up. " [Please note that the Texas Govenors Executive Order states that state employees need to report travel to China, but does not ban travel]

On the ability to teach, publish, and communicate:

• "I also worry about my ability to communicate my research goals to students authentically, and how this will affect their perception of science more broadly - they are deeply concerned with issues of environmental justice, and many engaging research avenues focus on related issues, but if I have to avoid those topics and censor myself because of funding restrictions, what does that tell students about the relevance of the research enterprise to their lives?"

• "For the last year, myself and 100 other scientists, almost all of us volunteers, were working together on a project to assess "the status, observed trends, and future projections of America's lands, waters, wildlife, biodiversity, and ecosystems and the benefits they provide." In January, with no warning, and for no reason, the entire project was eliminated by the Trump administration in an executive order ("Unleashing American Energy") aimed at, apparently, reducing green energy infrastructure...There is an atmosphere of fear on campus and in our department that is massively detrimental to the free pursuit of ideas that is the bedrock of scholarship and research. Professors are scared to mention climate change or to publish work that touches in any way on DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion]."

• "I teach an undergraduate biology course that covers issues such as climate change, persistent organic pollutants, and the socioeconomic correlates of diseases such as diabetes. This course asks students to engage with scientific data to evaluate potential public policy actions. The recent executive orders and targeted attacks on academics perceived to advance DEI, climate justice, or other ideologies have had an extremely chilling effect on how I teach this course. While this course does not advocate any particular viewpoint, it does ask students to engage in data-driven reasoning around potential public policy actions. I teach in a deeply red state and have become very concerned that this curriculum could be misinterpreted and I could be targeted by right-wing groups."

• "I live in a state that passed anti-DEI laws that make it more difficult to teach about subjects, such as sex and gender, in biology courses. I am concerned about possibly getting in trouble in some way for teaching accurate information in the classroom."

On self-censorship of scientific terms:

• "When I had to write a public summary of my proposal for NSF [National Science Foundation], I felt the need to avoid words that were being politically attacked, like "diversity". Even though the word diversity in the context of the my fellowship has nothing to do with DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], I was aware of grants being attacked simply for containing the word "trans", so I figured I could be reasonably be attacked next. Overall, recent federal policies have pressured me to self-censor and caused me immense anxiety."

• "I was encouraged to self-censor my work plan for a [specific USDA program] to remove "silenced" words, including "climate change", "climate models", and "climate suitability.""

• "The chilling effect on science, research, and First Amendment protected actions cannot be overstated, especially on young and early-career researchers. Federal policies since Jan 20th are actively driving myself and others away from promising scientific careers."

• "I am being advised to cut the word 'diverse' out of my proposal - difficult as I investigate biodiversity." 

See Data Availability to read these and additional narratives in their entirety.

Concerns about Biased or Removed Information and Data Gaps

A moderately common theme, related to the freedom of speech, was concern about biased information, removed information, and data gaps. 

• "Policies are putting long term studies at important research sites at risk of shutting down. Such long-term research sites are critical to understanding how the environment is changing and its impact on ecosystems that support human well-being. Gaps significantly diminish the value of such long-term data to understanding the key processes processes underlying changes to our world. The uncertainty of federal data availability also compromises science by making finding and acquiring relevant data more difficult, which lowers the quality and reliability of environmental, medical and economic analysis."

• One participant, who we do not have permission to quote, said that they taught courses on vaccines and that federal websites post information that contradicts the current knowledge in the field. They were concerned about how to present the material accurately, because the course was for pre-health students and their learning could impact public health in the future. 

• A self-identified contractor who highlighted how cuts to infrastructure restoration would prevent them from completing projects that would reduce damage from heavy flooding in their midwest state, said: "Irreplaceable harm has been caused because the public will not be able to depend on the accuracy of information in federal reports and publications. Already we hear about data being created to support the desired research outcomes, which is illegal and violates every tenent of scientific inquiry." 

• A respondent who we do not have permission to quote pointed out that their consulting business depended on publicly funded research that is free of commercial interests and financial bias to provide objective information to farmers and agricultural producers for pest management. They said that independent data helps to reduce costs and improve outcomes, and they were worried that reduction in federal research would be catastrophic for the agricultural industry.

• "Since Jan 20, I have observed the state grow bolder with its willingness to reject scientific information that does not conform with its desired policies. I had to remove one state colleague from co-authorship because their supervisor was not opposed to the quality of the science in our manuscript but worried about its implications. I am concerned that such trends may threaten my ability to secure data sharing agreements in the future. On the other hand, concerns about federal layoffs and deletion of data led to one new federal data sharing agreement from a colleague worried they would lose their job. In the short term this has benefits, but over the long run I doubt the tradeoff will be worth it. Similarly, the rapid influx of decisions that threaten ecological systems has led to greater funder attention to conservation. This led to an unexpected award that is allowing me to hire a postdoctoral scholar for the first time in my role. The current federal layoffs, hiring freezes, and uncertainty have led to a stronger candidate pool. This benefits me and my future prospects, even though I feel the changes that are happening are not for the good of the field."

Respondents also noted missing trainings with regard to workplace trainings on government websites, the removal of climate.gov*, the disbandment of research arms of the government that stakeholders get data from, reduced access to federal databases, concerns about continuing to access reliable data (e.g., Bird Banding Station as discussed below), and unrecoverable data that were unable to be collected because of disruptions to research (as discussed above). 

In addition to removal of information at the federal government level, respondents also noted removal of information related to diversity, equity, and inclusion from non-governmental websites or university programs.

See Data Availability to read these and additional narratives in their entirety.

*At the time of this writing, putting the address "climate.gov" into a web browser takes you to NOAA.gov where the following message is displayed: "UPDATED: June 24, 2025. In compliance with Executive Order 14303 (“Restoring Gold Standard Science”), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s June 23, 2025 Memorandum (“Agency Guidance for Implementing Gold Standard Science in the Conduct & Management of Scientific Activities”), 15 USC § 2904 (“National Climate Program”), 15 USC § 2934 (“National Global Change Research Plan”), and 33 USC § 893a (“NOAA Ocean and Atmospheric Science Education Programs”), you have been redirected to NOAA.gov. Future research products previously housed under Climate.gov will be available at NOAA.gov/climate and its affiliate websites."

On the Proposed Closing of the United States Geological Survey Bird Banding Lab

A recurring theme that related to the imporatance of data and concerns about data gaps were concerns about the proposed closure of the United States Geological Survey Bird Banding Lab, which is funded through the Ecosystems Mission Area (a department poised for complete defunding). The Bird Banding Lab is a database for managing and accessing bird banding data for all birds banded in the US for over 100 years. 

• Respondents reported that closing the Bird Banding Laboratory "would be an enormous, irreparable problem for all ornithologists in the United States because the Bird Banding Lab runs all federal bird permits and maintains the data for all birds banded (captured, measured, marked, and released) in the United States or by U.S. scientists since 1920. This is critical survival, age, sex, and morphological data for more than 63 million birds." 

• Failure to continue this lab would make "it impossible to do any kind of tracking or banding studies on birds as well as making the data from these studies be inaccessible". 

• "Without this information, researchers like me will not be able to track bird population trends. This includes game species. Harvest regulations rely on data like that that I use to sustainably set bag limits and rules surrounding game animal harvest. Hunting is a socially and culturally important activity in the US. Without this information, scientists and managers will not be able to sustainably regulate hunting activities for future generations." 

See Data Availability to read these and additional narratives in their entirety.

Decline in Government Efficiency and Expertise

A decline in government efficiency and expertise was another common theme in the responses.  Many respondents wrote about the consequences of a rapid loss of institutional knowledge across many federal agencies. Consquences included, but were not limited to, historically long waiting times for permit applications, funding decisions, and allocation of grant funds; delay or abandonment of projects; failure to distribute paychecks; inability to review risk assessments; and a breakdown of partnerships among the federal government, industries, universities, state agencies, and non-profits. 

• "Recent cuts to federal agencies have paradoxically increased waste, as they force the discontinuation of valuable projects, often near completion, resulting in the loss of prior investments. Loss of knowledgeable and expert staff have negatively impacted timeliness and reduced efficiency."

• "The majority of my research and outreach are currently funded by federal-academic partnerships that leverage the resources of an academic institution to at least double (I believe a recent 2023 estimate for one partnership was 3:1) the cost effectiveness and practical impact of federal dollars invested in coastal aquaculture, engineering, habitat restoration, and flood resilience. I have also worked with these programs’ branches in two other states, one with a Republican-dominated legislature. These partnerships are highly collaborative and non-partisan, integrating research and resources from across academia, federal/state/local agencies, non-profit organizations, industry, and the public. Their effectiveness derives from their political neutrality and broad reach, which is achieved in part by being tied to a federal system of partnerships....Abrupt loss of access to highly experienced federal personnel (at least one each from the National Park Service, NOAA, and Environmental Protection Agency) whose advisory expertise was being actively used for projects involving biodiversity monitoring and coastal flood protection. I have not observed a replacement for any of the three that makes up for their decades of knowledge, so these projects are now being advised with markedly less experience, which makes repetition of any past errors (and therefore waste of taxpayer funds) far more likely. It is wasteful of my time to have to decide constantly whether or not to pursue funding opportunities with clear scientific and societal merit (e.g. we would all like to continue supporting fisheries, farmed seafood, and our supportive industry partners who have been interested in this research because they strongly feel it benefits them), and spend weeks developing these opportunities, in an environment where any funding could be cut at any time without regard to contract or merit."

• "The loss of knowledgeable staff at NOAA has decreased the efficiency and effectiveness of all aspects of coastal stewardship and award management."

• "We lost 1/3 of our staff that were probationary in March. They were since rehired, but many would not come back. With the first second round of DRP [Deferred Resignation Program] and VERA [Voluntary Early Retirement Authority], we lost our best people...I can't do any work that's not timber priority. We were already understaffed and underfunded prior to all this. Now we are made ineffective... The changes to contracting and funding are horrible. Everything needs seven layers of approval, and no one really knows the process as it is changing all the time, and there are no staff left to ask."

• "The loss of institutional knowledge is vastly slowing down compliance needed to work on federal lands and on species under federal protection."

• "We cannot afford to lose more federal employees due to low morale and stress. Conservation and natural resources cannot afford to lose expertise in the practice of federal environmental laws and regulations.... We already see this with proposed rules to rescind the definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act, and to revise the National Environmental Policy Act. If environmental laws are removed or severely limited under the guise of them not being effective, then the resulting damage to our natural resources may take generations to repair."

• "The federal grant freeze in January 2025 had a significant impact on certain grant awardees who receive direct payments from institutions. As an NSF postdoctoral fellow, I directly receive payments from NSF, and the shutdown meant that I could no longer request stipend payments. Fortunately, the duration of this block was short, but the timing was stressful. The freeze occurred right at the end of the month - rent is due, and many of us postdocs are living paycheck to paycheck."

• "The collaboration between state agencies and the federal government has been severely degraded."

• "Several federal colleagues of mine have lost their jobs, which has caused delays in collaborative research projects and increased my workload. While not explicitly deletion of public data, the loss of staff at NOAA offices has lead to loss in data availability as, for instance, forcing datasets for operational oceanographic models that we use have stopped receiving updates."

• "The DOGE-driven personnel drain on my organization has been extremely costly in terms of maintaining a stable scientific enterprise and an efficient workplace."

• "I am a recent graduate and part of an internship opportunity with the USFS [United States Forest Service]. I, as an intern, and have seen how detrimental these effects have been on the USFS. Coworkers have left, and the forest at which I work on is a skeleton crew (even more so than when I first started, and they were already understaffed). My internship was also on furlough for [a few weeks] because of funding problems.... And I am so sad that the USFS and other federal institutions are loosing so much institutional knowledge due to the loss of many experienced workers and the lack of new hires to pass that knowledge onto."

• "When there is uncertainty in government, everything grinds to a halt so nothing new happens. Hiring freezes end up freezing entire new initiatives, which stifles scientific progress. The extremely prolonged wait for FY25 appropriations (still waiting) is causing huge uncertainty and anxiety among federal scientists." 

• "Freezing and delays of funding are having negative impacts on me, my lab, and all programs I am associated with. The chaos of panels that are delayed and then reinstated, or decisions for funding that are delayed for months, makes it difficult to plan and results in high inefficiency, not to mention stress for everyone involved. Taking time to plan contingencies in case of canceled grants (whose funds were appropriated by a previous administration) is unbelievably wasteful of a government supposedly interested in efficiency."

• "Colleagues have been abruptly fired (either probationary or on contract), many more retired early or quit. This has resulted in a dearth of new employees, many of which were lab technicians or administrative support, and long-term employees who held an immense amount of institutional knowledge. The result has been a massive admin burden on scientists, which has only increased in the name of "efficiency." Basic processes to purchase required equipment or services now take five times as long and more than once the funds have expired or the research event passed before the purchase finally gets approved."

• "As a former Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit scientist, the current threat is the termination of this highly effective program with a 100-year history.  The primary impact will be loss of cooperation among the federal government, state research universities, state departments of natural resources, other federal agencies, non-governmental agencies, and tribal entities to conduct research to inform natural resources conservation and train the next generation of natural resources scientists and managers."

• "As a consultant to small municipalities in water and wastewater, we rely heavily on the ability to obtain federal funds for our clients. We are concerned that these funds will dry up or be recalled."

• A respondent who self-identified as a regulatory risk assessor and we do not have permisssion to quote said that some departments in some agencies had no one with appropriate scientific expertise to review submissions, and this caused irreparable harm to the government.

See Data Availability to read these and additional narratives in their entirety.

From Positive Impacts to Irreparable Harm

There was a continuum of responses spanning positive impacts to irreparable harm. 

Positive impacts

Although positive impacts was a rare theme in the responses, some respondents noted how policies have or could have positive impacts for them.  For transparency, we include all responses from respondents who gave permission to quote them - in their entirety - in this category. There were five responses in total.

• "You should not assume everything was harmful. There is a large sector of consulting biologists that must deal with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service daily. The actions of the government has made these employees once again accountable. Prior to this it would take months of nonstop calling and emailing to get a simple answer. It was very evident these employees were not working on these permits or consultation efforts. This has made consulting much less stressful with federal employees once again doing their jobs."

• "They have actually been very positive.  We now have an administration in office that is working hard to actually do something positive for this country...strong foreign policy, deporting illegal immigrants, strengthening our economy, resetting fair trade policy, etc. The future of my research is bright and shiny!"

• "No harm at all, in fact it's been beneficial.  Useless research and programs that can't self fund or attract funding no longer can rely on gov't funding to continue and thus are shutting done.  This positive effect has been that people who never should have been working in this industry or now out of it."

• "As federal regulations loosen, CA [California] tends to react by tighten their state regulations. As a business that operates in the private sector of CA, this can increase business opportunities as both private and public sector developers, struggling to keep up with the ever changing regulations, seek assistance from private sector environmental consultants."

• "Federal policies have been positive in general with long-term objectives. Short-term impacts sacrifices have been experienced. State policies have been entirely negative."

Partially Positive Impacts or Policies Are a Step in the Right Direction

Other respondents noted that some recent policies have or could have potentially positive outcomes, such as stronger candidate pools, greater non-federal funding attention to conservation, benefits to the removal of red tape, and benefits to changes in diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Respondents in this category, however, felt that the administration had gone too far. For transparency, we include quotes from all four responses in this category from respondents who gave permission to quote them.

• "While I fully believe the Administration's policies are detrimental writ large, I do wonder if there will be any possible benefit in terms of the ability of the U.S. Forest Service to manage eastern deciduous/hardwood forests to promote habitat diversity; in recent decades, cutting timber on southeastern national forests has been severely curtailed due to litigation by groups that do not recognize the importance of forestry for habitat improvement for game and nongame species. This was prevented the Forest Service from implementing well-considered Forest Plans for each National Forest to the detriment of ruffed grouse, golden-winged warblers, and other species. However, I worry that the Administration's supposed removal of red tape could be outweighed by its the perilous disregard for environmental concerns and scientific voice in other realms."

• "I haven't applied for NSF grants recently because my impression is that working with underrepresented groups which isn't practical for me is the ONLY broader  impact that counts. So a small deemphasis of DEI would be an improvement but not eliminating it."

• "There are plenty who will oppose this administration under any circumstance... In sum, there are some negatives associated with this, but it remains to be seen what the end result will be - and that it's inconvenient now doesn't mean it won't ultimately lead to positive change."

• "I’m willing to take less money/have less available for conservation work to get the budget under control so we can have sustainable dollars for conservation in the future."

• One response in this category was quoted under in the section "Concerns about Biased or Removed Information and Data Gaps", with positive impacts leading to new data sharing agreement, an unexpected award, and a stronger candidate field, but feeling that the overall changes were not good for the field of science.

Harm could be irreparable in the future

Some respondents were not sure whether the harm was irreparable yet. Respondents who thought or implied the harm could be irreparable were concerned about the long-term impacts of shifting policies, loss of institutional knowledge, changing interpretation of laws, and funding cuts will cause ecosystem degradation and extinctions. 

• "I worry that we will be losing out on a generation of gifted researchers and conservationists. Although I do not think the harm is irreparable at this point, it may be by the end of the administration, or at least it will take much longer to repair the damage done, likely decades."

• "Cuts to species and biodiversity conservation threaten to undermine the foundation of that field in this country. The administration's subversion of the ability for wildlife biologists to conduct their research and make meaningful, durable contributions to the decision-making processes that help steer best practices in wildlife management is a gross violation of the public trust and serves to not only make it easier for imperiled landscapes to be seized in the interest of corporate interests, but poses an existential threat to habitats and species therein. The administration's attacks of bedrock environmental law like the ESA and NEPA that have for decades insulated irreplaceable habitat from corporate interests is extraordinarily detrimental to the public interest, especially considering that conservation and conservation legislation has historically seen bipartisan support."

• "Since January 20, 2025, my job and those I work with has been greatly altered. I work alongside the NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] to deliver conservation on the ground and I have seen the federal government become paralyzed. Where there was once effective partnerships and direct delivery of conservation practices to the American public, there is now quiet. It has done great harm to my cohort to feel so undervalued as a profession and told our work is expendable. I do not consider this irreparable; we will come back stronger and louder than before."

• "The revised interpretation of MBTA [Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918] will exacerbate the already declining bird populations in the US because it will inhibit USFWS from enforcing take when people inadvertently (or knowingly claim without intent) destroy bird eggs and chicks. This is not in the public interest as it will make the recovery of declining bird populations more difficult."

• "The proposed NSF cuts would cause irreparable harm to biology in the US by demolishing our funding for basic research in ecology and evolutionary biology. In addition to the currently proposed research cuts which feel up in the air still, the impacts on international students have been nothing short of devastating. Students fear for their safety and security. In many cases they are held prisoner in the US for the remainder of their degrees because if they leave they cannot be allowed back in due to visa processing freezes. This is devastating to the research of international students whose graduate work requires international fieldwork."

• "If these disruptions continue, they could cause real, lasting damage. Some of my work depends on seasonal field data and multi-year studies if I lose access to that, I can’t get it back. This doesn’t just affect me; it weakens the scientific work that supports conservation and public policy."

Harm is already irreparable

Respondents who thought or implied the harm was already irreparable noted that cuts and uncertainty caused them to substantially reduce, miss the opportunity to, or outright stop the collection of time-sensitive or time-dependent data, and this is irreparable because that data can never be collected. A similar argument was made for cancelled training programs, internships, workshops, and fellowships - students who would have participated in those programs could never have that experience at that pivotal timepoint in their careers. One respondent said that destruction of career prospects was an irreparable harm. Other respondents said the loss of institutional knowledge in the federal government was already causing irreparable harm to to the government itself (because the agencies are unlikely to get back that expertise) and their constituents.

• "Federal funding cuts are leading to state and non-profit program contractions, unofficial hiring freezes, and ending of programs supportive to early career professionals and students. Students are anxious, depressed, and upset. This field contracts and expands with different administrations, but this administration's outright assault on dismantling the environmental profession is unprecedented. The harm feels irreparable."

• "The loss of important staff, especially recent hires who were the future of the organizations, and on whom we were relying for much of the day to day work and novel ideas caused both a huge gap in our ability to serve the public, and gutted the morale of their co-workers.  This is all coupled with the actual lack of support and funding for contracts, travel, purchasing, and all of the other daily activities required to run a science agency.   Ultimately, some of these actions are irreparable as the agencies are unlikely to gain back the expertiese lost and have severely tarnished what was once the most trusted source of U.S. environmental information.  Who would want to work for a government that treats its employees this way?"

• "I am staying positive amid all this darkness, but we can all agree these cuts and changes will irreparably harm the academic research fields of ecology and evolution."

• "Destruction of career prospects, an irreparable harm to people I know (and a major risk for myself). Getting a job in academia was already a brutally difficult process before January 20 2025, and the major new obstacles now in place will make this an impossibility for many people who otherwise would have been poised to make great contributions to our country through their education of our students. As universities scramble to deal with funding cuts, new taxes, and cuts to overhead, there have been hiring freezes instituted throughout the country. University researchers with non-permanent positions now have to contend with the possibility that their chances of getting grants to stay in science are shrinking to near 0 due to budget cuts. I hope to have a career in academia because as described above, I want to contribute to the education of our next generation... It is not possible to wait indefinitely for these situations to resolve, and so many people will leave who would have otherwise done great things for the public and the students of our country."

• "The disruption to conservation research has implications beyond my individual career. Endangered species recovery programs rely on genetic research to inform breeding programs, habitat management, and population monitoring. Loss of monitoring programs creates gaps in scientific understanding that cannot be recovered, as ecological baselines and trend data are time-sensitive. This represents an irreparable harm to conservation science."

• "We lost half of our staff. Although they were all able to return to work within a few weeks, there was significant, potentially irreparable harm to the specific group of constituents that we serve. We still do not know what will happen in the near or distant future. The latest budget proposal calls for complete elimination for federal funding for related institutions and a 30+% reduction in our budget. We don't know if we will exist in a year." 

• "Our research is beneficial to understanding how increasing natural disasters impact human and ecosystem health, and it is all ending. The loss of these programs and ending of long-term monitoring is irreparable -- we will never get back the loss of knowledge."

• "There have been irreparable damages to the entire scientific enterprise. The brain drain from federal agencies can not be undone even the funding were to be restored.  The outlook for research funding is worse than bleak.  The cutting of funding for work already in progress is shameful and extremely wasteful.  The lack of respect for individual rights and refusal to provide opportunities to those underserved and underrepresented is shameful and criminal.  The damage will not be undone in my lifetime.  It is a tragedy with impacts that wont be fully realized by those making these poor decisions until it is far too late..."

• "The program I am apart of has stewarded a 20+ year long-term monitoring dataset that is invaluable to the conservation and restoration of its focal species; since 01/20/25, this program has been irreparably damaged. Team members have been fired (positions eliminated), funding has been frozen, and travel has been prohibited. Consequently, the monitoring program this year has been reduced by 75% with expectations that this is the last year of monitoring. All support staff are no longer in their roles, and the program cannot persist at current staffing levels. Regardless of staffing or funding, the program is nearly impossible to continue under the current travel restrictions and prohibitions: in order to access field sites, staff must access federal vehicles and utilize travel funding/resources. Due to this, we are losing the richest dataset in the world for this federally listed (under Endangered Species Act) threatened species. It remains uncertain how this species will persist without human intervention due to the threats it faces. This species is not only a wildlife resource and provides numerous ecosystem services as a keystone species, but it also supports recreation and hunting access--not to mention its high cultural importance."

See Data Availability to read these and additional narratives in their entirety.

Concerns in the Ability to Meet Legal Mandates and Comply with Laws

Although not a common theme, a number of respondents expressed concern about the governement fulfilling an obligation to meet legal mandates, agreements, enforce or comply with laws, or complete work requested by stakeholders. 

• One respondent noted that "Cooperation on a multi-agency level with Federal partners has all but vanished with the elimination of, or retirement of, many great biologists, researchers, field technicians, etc. This has quelled research as well as programmatic work flows that are necessary to stay in compliance with both Federal and state laws and legal requirements." 

• Another self-identified graduate student who works under a cooperative agreement between the federal government and a university said: "Proposed changes to the ESA mean that the species we have spent decades researching could face extinction. Executive orders related to increasing timber production also pose direct and extreme threats to the future of this and many other species. Funding for our agency's research and development branch is proposed to be completely eliminated in the next budget, which means we can no longer even study these impacts -- which is required by congressional mandate." 

• Another respondent noted: "Termination of the US Global Climate Change Research Program (USGCRP) has eliminated funding for travel to UNEP [UN Environment Programme] meetings supporting the Montreal Protocol.  The lack of travel funding means that I, and other US scientists, will be unable to contribute to scientific assessments on the environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change. This knowledge is essential for policy makers to make informed decisions regarding policies that directly and indirectly impact environmental sustainability, human health and security, and planetary well-being."

Other respondents were noted that the administration's anti-DEI agenda conflicts with the congressional mandate of NSF written into federal code, and that federal cuts will result in a diminished ability of agencies to meet their statutory missions.

See Data Availability to read these and additional narratives in their entirety.

Additional Themes

Additional themes in the responses included disruptions to institutions and industry, disruptions to families, decreased morale, wasted time and effort associated with planning for uncertainty, and disruptions to education and degree programs. Four respondents (three who gave permission to publish their response) expressed concern about potential biases in the survey data (see further Discussion below). The full set of de-identified responses, from participants who gave permission for their response to be shared publicly, can be found in the Data Availability section.

Discussion

The fields of ecology, evolution, and marine science conduct research that is critical to understanding life on this planet and to the benefit of human health and wellbeing. Objective research informs the best course of action for the management of natural resources, for the the optimization of agriculture and aquaculture, for the support of wildlife, for the optimization of harvesting, for the management of pests and other invasive species, for clean air and water, for the protection of the ozone layer, for the mitigation of flooding, for tourism and outdoor recreation, and more. As one respondent said, "The environment is part of the American identity".

Scientists and practitioners in the fields of ecology, evolution, and marine science largely work across and collaborate with all branches of the federal government, as well as state agencies, academic institutions, non-profit institutions, and the private sector. Results from this survey highlight how the the historical collaboration among federal, state, and other institutions to conduct science has been disrupted by recent federal policies. Our results also highlight the importance of federal funding for training in the scientific method for early career individuals.

Every survey can suffer from bias based on the recipients of the survey (in this case, members of scientific societies) who decide to respond. On one hand, recipients who have been negatively affected by policies may have been more likely to respond to the survey. On the other hand, recipients who have been negatively affected and who could suffer consequences or be targeted if their identity were known (such as current government employees, immigrants, or members of marginalized groups) may be less likely to respond. While we cannot fully quantify all sources of non-response bias, survey data from this study demonstrate the effects of recent federal (and state) policies on research activities and training programs that benefit the public good.