Is the Price Right? Columbia Settles to Save Science

(Photo/CUIMC/Columbia University)

By Sneha Sinha

On March 8, 2025, Trump’s targeting of Columbia University – starting with the detainment of our fellow classmate, Mahmoud Khalil – felt deeply personal to SIPA students.  Many felt called to action, while others felt trepidation about using their voice. Multiple boards for student organizations turned over, including The Morningside Post, because international students felt that their freedom of speech was suddenly compromised.

Coupled with Khalil’s detainment was a slew of funding cuts to Columbia’s research programs, totaling over $400 million, which deeply affected Columbia University’s Irving Medical Center (CUIMC). Leo Terrell, head of the Department Of Justice Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, said, “Freezing the funds is one of the tools we are using to respond to this spike in anti-Semitism. This is only the beginning.” While SIPA students were stripped of their voices, many CUIMC students were left clueless about whether they would receive their next paycheck.

Columbia University holds over $5 billion dollars in federal grant funding commitments. In Columbia’s financial statements for fiscal year 2024, federal funding accounted for $1.3 billion – over 20% – of the University’s operating revenues and support. When the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cut $250 million by halting 400 grants, researchers and investigators were frozen in uncertainty. According to one PhD student who asked to remain anonymous, “There was a freeze on everything: freeze on spending, on influx of money.” As a result, some labs decided to overstock on lab supplies like pipette tips and syringes in case funding was frozen for months.

Many doctoral students rely on T32 training grants for their first two years of the PhD program, before they finalize their research projects and choose a Principal Investigator (PI). Columbia University reassured these students, alongside MD-PhD dual doctoral students in the Medical Science Training Program (MSTP), that they were guaranteed their stipend when funds were initially frozen. But this did not extend to researchers and staff. In May, 180 people working at least in part on impacted federal grants received notices of non-renewal or termination. 

Lab work is already a Sisyphian task of keeping samples alive and repeatedly testing hypotheses that yield minimal results. Suddenly, pervasive doubts about science’s integrity stacked the odds against staff, students, and professors alike.  Though it was tiresome, students persevered: “we’re just going to keep working… we’re going to keep doing science the way that we know how to do,” said the same PhD student. PIs shouldered the burden of upholding the value of science, doubling-down on their passion and commitment to scientific discovery to motivate their students.

In July, Columbia reached a $200 million settlement with the Trump administration to restore funding. Did the university concede too early? Parties are incentivized to settle when they find the costs of continuing the fight higher than the concessions for peace. In this case, it seems like Columbia’s agreement was struck not out of mutual satisfaction, but out of exhaustion, uncertainty, and the fear of further losses. 

“We have seen not only $400 million in federal grants frozen, but also the majority of our $1.3 billion a year in federal funding placed on hold. The prospect of that continuing indefinitely, along with the potential loss of top scientists, would jeopardize our status as a world-leading research institution,” Claire Shipman, acting president of Columbia University, said in the official announcement. “Columbia’s discussions with the federal government have been set up as a test of principle—a binary fight between courage and capitulation. But like most things in life, the reality is far more complex.”

For many across the institution, this agreement provided a sigh of relief. The same doctoral candidate said, “It was such a time of uncertainty… if the grants [that] were on the chopping block actually never came in, it would have been detrimental.” Still, that sigh feels stifled, as if the institution needs to hold its breath for the next three and a half years.

Students noted that renowned speakers have hosted seminars with less regularity than in past years, and that incoming PhD cohorts in the Biomedical Sciences departments have been cut by 25%. Though funding has technically been restored, the substance has changed: National Science Foundation (NSF) grants have shrunk in size, scope, and content. Forbes published an article with a list of 197 words that might trigger reviews of federal grant proposals to NIH and NSF, including “anti-racism”, “diversity”, “equity”, “gender,” and “status.”  

A more existential concern underlies these tangible impacts: the politicization of science itself. “Funding cuts painted a clear picture of how the Trump administration instrumentalized science, and instrumentalized ‘truth,’ to advance their particular agenda,” a current medical student said, who asked to remain anonymous. Another reflected, “The message put out into the world, whether it was direct or indirect, was that science is not important.” 

This erosion of trust in science carries broad consequences. America’s historic edge in innovation has long depended on stable funding streams and a welcoming environment for global talent. Yet, with the announcement of $100,000 fees for H1-B visas, international students face greater precarity. Is this the beginning of an American brain drain?

For students and faculty, the stakes go beyond financial ledgers. They touch on the integrity of research, the credibility of the academy, and the future of the United States as a hub of discovery. As one medical student put it, “I find myself grappling with this idea that the American research enterprise is just falling apart.” For students of policy and of science alike, Columbia’s bargain reflects the uneasy balance between survival today and uncertainty tomorrow.