
New Jersey Scientists Protest as Federal Research Grants Face Uncertainty
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
New Brunswick NJ, Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway confirmed in a recent campus-wide email that federal research funding is being blocked, leaving scientists and researchers across New Jersey in limbo. His statement follows growing concerns over the Trump administration’s executive order, which bars federal spending on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and has led to major funding cuts at agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
As a reminder in 2022, Rutgers athletics rang up another $73 million deficit in the last fiscal year as spending reached an all-time high of $118 million amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Students and taxpayers had to cover the gap.
Trump’s Executive Order Disrupts Scientific Research
The impact of these funding restrictions has sent shockwaves through the scientific community. Lauren Madden, a professor at The College of New Jersey, was taken aback when she received an unexpected email from the National Science Foundation (NSF). As the recipient of a $3 million, six-year federal grant, she had never encountered such a notice before.
The email stated that all NSF-funded research must comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order, which bans federal funding for projects deemed to promote DEI initiatives. This sudden shift has left researchers scrambling to modify proposals and avoid flagged language that could result in funding cuts.
Additionally, the NIH—America’s largest public funder of biomedical research—announced cuts of over $4 billion per year, further straining research institutions. The new NIH policy caps administrative overhead costs at 15%, a move the agency claims will improve efficiency but could drastically reduce operational support for many research programs.
New Jersey Scientists Take to the Streets in Protest
In response, hundreds of faculty, graduate students, and researchers from Rutgers University, The College of New Jersey, and Princeton University gathered in Trenton for a “Stand Up for Science” rally—part of a nationwide grassroots movement pushing back against the federal funding freeze.
🔹 Protesters chanted: “Facts not fear!” and “Out of the lab and into the streets!”
🔹 Many attendees hold federal grants for cancer research, genetics, infertility studies, and drug manufacturing.
🔹 Scientists warn that delayed grants and funding cuts will have devastating effects on critical research.
“We can’t do research without grants. Universities don’t fund our work—grants do,” said Tara Matise, a genetics professor at Rutgers-New Brunswick.
Grant Approvals Delayed, Research in Jeopardy
Since January 20, grant approvals have been indefinitely delayed, leaving many researchers in financial limbo. Rutgers alone received $560.1 million in federal research funding for 2024, but uncertainty looms as critical funding decisions remain on hold.
Rutgers researcher Karen Schindler, who studies female infertility, has been waiting for the renewal of a $1.5 million NIH grant—but no review meeting has been scheduled.
Meanwhile, doctoral students are losing their fellowships. Annika Barber, a molecular bioscientist, learned that her doctoral student’s NIH-funded fellowship was abruptly terminated.
“He’s a fourth-year doctoral student,” Barber said. “This grant would have funded the final phase of his training and transition to postdoctoral research.”
Grants like, The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently spent close to $300,000 on what seems to be a DEI initiative for bird-watching groups.
“In yet another shining example of wasteful government spending, the National Science Foundation has decided that the world of bird watching needs a dose of diversity, equity, and inclusion,” Paul writes. “To that end, they’ve approved a grant of $288,563 to create ‘affinity groups’ within ornithological societies—basically, birdwatching clubs—based on identity characteristics…The goal, they say, is to ensure that birdwatching communities are more ‘inclusive.’”
Trump’s Policies Put Key Scientific Research at Risk
Beyond grant cuts, research terms linked to gender, equity, and social justice are under scrutiny. A press release from Sen. Ted Cruz’s office flagged 3,400 NSF grants for further review—many of which involve cancer research and medical studies requiring gender-based data.
🔹 At least 54 flagged grants directly relate to cancer research.
🔹 Words like ‘gender’ and ‘equity’ are raising red flags despite their scientific necessity.
🔹 Scientists fear that cancer, drug effectiveness, and reproductive health studies could suffer due to these restrictions.
“It’s unheard of to limit what words can or can’t be used in science,” said Matise. “This is political interference in research at an unprecedented level.”
A new report by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), “The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope”, which details how the national Science Foundation (NSF) squanders billions of dollars on silly research projects and mismanagement, shows the federal government’s never ending creativity in wasting tax dollars.
Unbeknownst to taxpayers, and many members of Congress, the NSF has been funding some silly research projects. According to the report, the following is a list of questionable (that is being nice) grants, including:
- $1,500,000 to study how long you will have to wait if you trust your laundry folding to a robot;
- $559,681 to study how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill;
- $476,000 to study how often do people lie in text messages and online messaging;
- $161,522 to study how members of Congress can improve their approval ratings through town hall meetings; and
- $79,998 to study why the same teams always dominate the March Madness college basketball tournament
Mismanagement is also pervasive throughout NSF. A few of Sen. Coburn’s findings include:
- “One senior executive spent at least 331 days looking at pornography on his government computer and chatting online with nude or partially clad women—costing the taxpayers between $13,800 and $58,000;
- Two romantically involved NSF employees go on 47 get-a-ways on NSF’s dime. A senior manager at NSF went on 47 trips in a two and a half year period with a direct subordinate, at a total cost of $144,152 in NSF funds;
- Senior level NSF official took or extended taxpayer-funded trips totaling $11,283 for romantic liaisons with women in Paris, Tokyo, and Vancouver; and
- In their spare time NSF employees have been jello-wrestling in Antarctica at the NSF research station McMurdo station.”
Rutgers Braces for Continued Uncertainty
Rutgers is actively monitoring the situation and working with elected officials to push back against these restrictions. However, Holloway warned that NIH councils are still not meeting, blocking the approval of new grants.
🔹 Several Rutgers research projects have been modified or terminated due to federal policy changes.
🔹 The university has launched a resource page to guide researchers through this evolving landscape.
As the Trump administration prepares to appeal a federal judge’s ruling blocking NIH funding cuts, researchers remain uncertain about their future.
“Never before has the future of science been so unclear,” Matise said. “The public may not feel it now, but these cuts will impact medicine, drug development, and scientific discoveries for years to come.”
The Bottom Line
The Trump administration’s funding policies are reshaping the research landscape, forcing universities and scientists to navigate a politically charged environment. With federal support dwindling, the future of scientific innovation hangs in the balance—and New Jersey researchers aren’t backing down without a fight.
🔹 What do you think about these funding cuts? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Tell your story #TheRidgewoodblog , #Indpendentnews, #information, #advertise, #guestpost, #affiliatemarketing,#NorthJersey, #NJ , #News, #localnews, #bergencounty, #sponsoredpost, #SponsoredContent, #contentplacement , #linkplacement, Email: Onlyonesmallvoice@gmail.com
from the folks that gave us 57 genders and men can have babies
is it real science or Phil Murphy political science
these A holes spent over 400G on take out for the football team , give me a break
RU is a cesspool
Its really DEE (D E and Exclusion)