This report is exclusively available to Business Insider subscribers. To dive deeper, consider becoming an Insider and gain access to insightful content now.

When Peter Lurie received the startling news that President Donald Trump had decided to cut federal funding for his HIV research program, he was taken aback. However, it didnt take long for him to understand the reasoning behind this drastic move.

You can see exactly how they identified the grant that I was on as a target, Lurie explained to Business Insider. There is some mention of trans people involved in the research, and that apparently is enough to kill off vital research.

Lurie is among a group of researchers who are currently suing the Trump administration over its decision to slash funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for various critical projects. These cuts affect research not only on HIV but also on Alzheimers, reproductive health issues, cancer, and diabetes. Lurie was specifically on a two-year NIH grant worth nearly $300,000, which was abruptly terminated on March 21. He expressed deep concern, stating, This means that certain answers that could potentially stem the HIV epidemic, for instance, will not be found.

Experts in research, science, and education policy have voiced that Trumps sudden freeze on billions of dollars of federal funding could have far-reaching consequences. They argue that this action may not only block significant progress in scientific research but could also lead to fewer Nobel Prizes, increased brain drain, and hinder innovation in artificial intelligence (AI). These experts warn that the United States risks losing its competitive edge as students and researchers might migrate to countries like China and various European nations that are willing to support their research endeavors.

The Trump administration has asserted that universities failing to comply with its directivessuch as cutting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiativesare at risk of suffering funding cuts. On April 21, the NIH announced that it would pull medical research funding from institutions that maintain DEI programs or those participating in boycotts against Israeli products.

While some researchers acknowledge that improvements can be made to the higher education funding frameworksuch as streamlining the convoluted process for receiving funds and enhancing transparency about taxpayer dollarsLurie warned that the abrupt withdrawal of funding will cause more harm than good. The United States and the NIH, in particular, have been the envy of the world when it comes to medical research. What is already becoming clear is that the United States is beginning to lose ground, Lurie lamented. It means that people will go elsewhere for support, and some will leave the country due to a lack of funding. This definitely endangers the United States' role as the global leader in medical research, and for that, we will pay a price.

The White House, NIH, and the Department of Education have yet to respond to requests for comments regarding these funding cuts.

Robert J. Lefkowitz, a Nobel Laureate in chemistry who won the prize in 2012 for his contributions to the discovery of a family of receptors that interact with nearly half of all medications today, echoed Luries concerns. He indicated that a significant portion of his research funding has historically come from the NIH. The biomedical research enterprise in the United States is by far the leading one globally, and the NIH is undoubtedly the primary supporter of that, Lefkowitz stated. He emphasized that the cuts not only pose a cause for concern but also create uncertainty regarding the future of the affected programs, leaving universities scrambling to assess their next steps.

Lefkowitz also remarked on the potential repercussions for students and trainees, who may find themselves unable to engage in ongoing research due to funding shortages, prompting them to seek employment opportunities elsewherepotentially outside the United States. Its a bad situation. Ive been in this field for about 60 years, and Ive never seen anything like this before, Lefkowitz lamented.

Throughout his presidency, Trump has proposed and implemented various policies that he claims would elevate Americas status, encapsulated by his campaign slogan, Make America Great Again. The administration has framed the freezing of funding for non-compliant universities as a reflection of their commitment to prioritizing American interests.

For instance, in a post on Truth Social on April 15, Trump suggested that he would contemplate revoking Harvard Universitys tax-exempt status if it continued to support what he described as political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting Sickness? In contrast, Columbia University complied with Trumps demands to secure its $400 million in federal funding. However, other prestigious institutions, including Harvard, have stood firm against these pressures. Glenn Altschuler, a professor of American Studies at Cornell University, warned that the ongoing funding threats from the Trump administration could lead to a significant loss of talent that is crucial for maintaining Americas leadership in scientific innovation.

Altschuler noted that it is likely other nations, such as China, will attempt to attract American researchers by offering funding for their laboratories, travel, and research endeavors. And those scientists, depending on their life circumstances, may find this a very appealing option, he stated. For decades, the brain drain has benefited the United States, but now it could very well work against us. This trend is already taking shape, as evidenced by French President Emmanuel Macron recently promoting a project on LinkedIn aimed at luring international scientists to conduct their research in France. Here in France, research is a priority, innovation is a culture, and science is a boundless horizon, Macron stated in his post.

Altschuler cautioned that the full impact of Trumps funding freezes might not be felt for years, potentially making it too late to reverse the damage at that point. We may lose a significant next generation of important researchers in both medicine and science. The reality is, well never know what discoveries could have been made, Altschuler warned. Once you lose your edge in this field, regaining it is extremely difficult, and it will take a long time to recover.

Experts agree that the issue of altering how colleges receive federal funding is not inherently negative. Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, posited that it is reasonable to question the appropriateness of the current funding levels. There seems to be a consensus that the amount of federal funding institutions have become accustomed to might be overly generous, she remarked. Taxpayers might not be pleased if they fully understood where their money is going.

Nevertheless, Akers emphasized that the suddenness of the funding freezes has resulted in a process that is more wasteful and destructive than is necessary. She added that had there been prior discussions with universities regarding the cuts, researchers would have had the opportunity to either wind down their projects or seek alternative arrangements. A lot of work that had commenced will need to be abandoned, Akers noted.

The repercussions extend beyond the realm of science; technology sectors are also at risk. Rebecca Willett, a professor in statistics and computer science at the University of Chicago, explained that Trumps funding cuts jeopardize innovation in the field of artificial intelligence. Although federal spending on AI has historically been low, Willett pointed out that significant advancements have already been achieved through initiatives like ChatGPT and the use of AI to further biomedical research. Reducing funding could stifle these pivotal advancements.

These investments are crucial in areas that will significantly benefit society and provide real value to the taxpayers who support this work, Willett said. She warned that cuts to these programs would not only lead the US to miss important discoveries but would also hinder workforce development, as students would lack the needed resources to receive adequate training for evolving technology tools.

For an administration that claims to prioritize Americas standing in the world, Willett argued that such funding cuts are counterintuitive. Utilizing taxpayer dollars to sustain and advance scientific research is essential for the long-term success, prosperity, and security of the United States, Willett stated. Everyone should be alarmed when these funding dollars are at risk of being cut.