Yuyun Lusiyani
For decades, physicists wrestled with a fundamental mystery of the universe: why do certain particles, like the protons in atoms, possess mass, while particles of light do not? This profound question was not merely academic; its answer was understood to be crucial for comprehending the origins of planets, galaxies, and even life itself. The prevailing theory, formulated decades prior, posited that particles acquired mass through interaction with an invisible, omnipresent force field, later dubbed the Higgs field. Yet, proving its existence remained an elusive goal, demanding an unprecedented scale of scientific endeavor.
The Higgs Boson: A Triumph of Global Science
The quest to validate the Higgs field theory culminated in one of the most ambitious international collaborations in scientific history. Starting well before the turn of the millennium, thousands of scientists from dozens of nations, some of whom were geopolitical adversaries, worked side-by-side. The United States played a pivotal role, contributing approximately a quarter of the vast workforce and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the colossal undertaking. This sustained investment and cross-border cooperation ultimately paid off in 2012, when the team at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) detected the elusive particle associated with the Higgs field – the Higgs boson, often popularized as the "God particle." This groundbreaking discovery unequivocally confirmed the half-century-old Higgs field theory, earning two of the physicists behind the theory, Peter Higgs and François Englert, the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2013. Their achievement solidified the Standard Model of particle physics and advanced humanity’s understanding of the fundamental forces that govern the universe.
A Seismic Shift in Federal Funding: The Proposed OMB Rule
However, the very system that fostered such a monumental achievement now faces an existential threat. Under a new rule proposed by the Trump administration through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), American scientists could be relegated to observing similar future discoveries from the sidelines. This proposal seeks to severely restrict international collaboration and grant unprecedented authority to political appointees, allowing them to unilaterally decide which research projects receive federal funding and empowering them to terminate grants at any time, for virtually any reason. The OMB, a powerful yet often little-known arm of the White House responsible for guiding federal spending, aims for the final version of this rule to take effect on October 1.
The implications of this proposed rule reach far beyond the realm of high-energy physics. It would encompass at least hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants, affecting a vast spectrum of public services and research. This includes critical support for food stamp benefits, housing assistance, small business loans, and funding for the arts. Many cities, states, and non-profit organizations depend heavily on these federal grants to sustain their annual budgets and deliver essential services.
The architect behind this expansive push for executive control over federal spending is Russell Vought, who directs the OMB. Vought has consistently championed the expansion of presidential authority in this domain, having previously dismantled parts of the U.S. Agency for International Development and controversially blocked funds already allocated by Congress. In a particularly criticized move last year, Vought’s office canceled 284 Department of Energy grants. Court records later revealed that these terminations were "based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state" – effectively targeting states that lean Democrat. This precedent underscores the concerns surrounding the potential for politicization under the new proposed rule, where appointees, regardless of their scientific or subject-matter expertise, would wield significant discretion over grant awards and terminations.
Voices of Concern: Scientists and Stakeholders React
The scientific community has reacted with alarm. Dr. David W. Miller, a University of Chicago physics professor who played a direct role in the landmark Higgs boson project, immediately filed a formal objection with the federal government upon learning of the proposal. "These experiments take decades to build and require sustained, cooperative international investment," Miller wrote in his public comment. He warned unequivocally, "The experiments will continue, without American leadership. … The United States will not just fall behind. It will step aside." Miller’s personal journey, from growing up in public schools in Chicago with parents who were first responders, to winning a full-ride scholarship to the University of Chicago and later contributing to CERN, exemplifies the opportunities created by sustained government investment in education and research. His early career as a research technician at CERN and subsequent doctoral research at Stanford were both supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), highlighting the critical role of stable federal funding.
Miller’s concerns are echoed by thousands of scientists across the nation, who have flooded the OMB with nearly 500,000 public comments since the rule’s announcement in late May. These experts warn that the rule, as currently drafted, would severely curtail vital research in areas such as treating pediatric cancers, improving maternal health, and advancing fundamental scientific inquiry. Beyond the scientific sphere, representatives from diverse organizations, including domestic violence service providers, museums, and the attorneys general of 22 states, have also registered their strong objections, highlighting the rule’s wide-ranging negative impacts.
Leading political figures have also weighed in. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a prominent Republican, sent a letter to Vought urging the OMB to withdraw specific provisions of the rule that she argued would "unduly burden scientific and biomedical research and small communities." Collins specifically criticized the provision allowing political appointees to review grant proposals, noting that it would fundamentally undermine the objective of awarding funds "based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology." Congressional Democrats have also registered their unanimous opposition to the proposed changes.
Undermining the Pillars of Scientific Excellence
The United States’ world-renowned system for funding science is built upon a foundation of expert judgment and rigorous merit-based peer review, with minimal political interference. This system entrusts funding decisions to subject-matter experts—physicists vet proposals from other physicists, oncologists from other oncologists—ensuring that the most promising and impactful research receives support. Furthermore, larger, multi-year projects are typically guaranteed steady funding, allowing researchers to hire staff, design and acquire specialized equipment, and make long-term commitments to partner institutions or, in the case of medical research, to patients undergoing treatments.
The proposed OMB rule directly threatens this established framework. By allowing grants to be terminated with minimal explanation or opportunities for appeal, it injects an unprecedented level of uncertainty and political risk into the research process. As Miller articulated, this arbitrary power "is a tool for political coercion. It tells every scientist in America: your funding is safe only as long as your work, your institution, or your public statements remain acceptable to the current administration." This shift would dismantle the principle that has guided American scientific enterprise for generations: "fund the best ideas, chosen by the best experts, and get out of the way."
Jeopardizing Global Scientific Collaboration
A particularly contentious aspect of the rule is its explicit prohibition on researchers using federal funds to "support certain foreign collaborations involving covered foreign countries or covered foreign entities." While the rule allows for limited exceptions, such as federally mandated collaborations or those determined not to pose a national security risk by an agency head, the ambiguity surrounding the definition of "covered countries" and the lack of clarity on enforcement mechanisms are deeply troubling. An OMB spokesperson has not provided a list of these countries nor clarified how this provision would be implemented.
The Higgs boson discovery itself stands as a testament to the power of international scientific diplomacy. Over 60 nations contributed to this effort. Engineers from India tested superconducting magnets, Russian scientists sourced brass from World War II artillery shells for particle detectors, and countries like China, Italy, and Pakistan are currently contributing to ongoing upgrades for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The Trump administration has previously restricted collaborations with researchers from certain countries, such as China, raising concerns that many long-standing scientific partnerships could be arbitrarily cut off. The volatile nature of international relations, where the President has engaged in public disputes with traditional U.S. allies like the United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, and Canada, further exacerbates fears that the list of "adversaries" could expand unpredictably.
Chris Llewellyn Smith, a former CERN director and emeritus professor of physics at the University of Oxford, emphasized that strict limits on international partnerships fly in the face of centuries of scientific practice. He pointed out that the Royal Society of London, a scientific academy founded in the 1600s, appointed a foreign secretary to facilitate communication with scientists abroad nearly 60 years before the British government established a similar diplomatic role. Smith also highlighted how global political tensions have already eroded the collaborative atmosphere at CERN. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, CERN’s governing body voted to ban scientists affiliated with Russian labs, a move that has not only harmed the careers of Russian scientists but also deprived CERN of crucial hardware and labor for future projects like the proposed Future Circular Collider. If the U.S. similarly retreats from international collaboration due to these new restrictions, Llewellyn Smith warned, it "could jeopardize the whole future of high-energy physics."
The Unforeseen Dividends of Basic Research
While the intricacies of particle physics may seem abstract to many, the history of science repeatedly demonstrates that fundamental research yields unforeseen, transformative technological developments. The very infrastructure of CERN has been a crucible for innovation: a CERN engineer pioneered the modern touch screen in the 1970s while developing research instrumentation, and the World Wide Web was invented by a CERN scientist seeking to facilitate data sharing between disparate institutions. Beyond these examples, smaller particle accelerators find practical applications in manufacturing and advanced cancer therapies.
The practical applications of basic research often take generations to materialize, illustrating the shortsightedness of politically motivated funding cuts. Miller cited GPS technology, which underpins our modern navigation systems, as dependent on century-old equations formulated by Albert Einstein. "I guarantee you that Einstein wasn’t thinking about your ability to find Starbucks this morning when he wrote down the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity," Miller quipped, underscoring the unpredictable yet profound long-term societal benefits of investing in fundamental scientific inquiry without immediate commercial or political mandates.
The Administration’s Rationale and Its Critics
The OMB defends its proposed rule by asserting its necessity to prevent "waste, fraud, and ideological bias." An OMB spokesperson told ProPublica that the rule "will ensure spending is aligned with current law, Executive Orders, and agency priorities" and is "fundamentally about accountability to the American people and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely." The spokesperson dismissed claims to the contrary as "based on spurious assumptions," arguing the rule "will not disrupt major scientific research or supplant the peer review process."
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank whose work the OMB references, has publicly praised the proposed changes. A recent column from the foundation lauded the empowerment of political appointees as providing "the kind of adult supervision" necessary to ensure "the taxpayer is funding the activity that he votes for at election time."
However, critics contend that the administration’s rationale addresses problems that are either exaggerated or do not warrant such a drastic, blunt-force regulatory tool. The rule repeatedly cites "woke" funding decisions during the Biden administration as a primary driver for reform. An agency spokesperson claimed, "Federal grants were politicized by the last administration to promote a far-left DEI agenda," referring to initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. The rule points to a 2024 report from Senate Republicans that, based on a keyword search of terms like "women," "diversify," "segregation," and "Hispanic culture," claimed $2 billion in National Science Foundation grants were supporting "radical political perspectives." ProPublica’s own reporting, however, found that many of these projects simply referenced existing social inequities or involved unrelated terms inadvertently flagged by the committee’s crude methodology; one cited example was a study on the evolution of mint plants.
Regarding fraud, while it exists within federal science funding, it is relatively rare. Data from the NSF’s Office of Inspector General indicates that approximately $54 million has been recovered from fraud cases involving universities, non-profits, and small businesses over the past decade. This averages to $5.4 million per year—a minuscule fraction of the billions of dollars the NSF distributes annually in grants.
Furthermore, the rule’s prohibition of DEI initiatives appears to directly conflict with existing federal statutes. For instance, the proposed rule clashes with a statute that directs the National Science Foundation to broaden the "participation of underrepresented populations," specifically women, Black, and Hispanic researchers, in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. While federal physics funding has historically been less of a political target than grants related to health disparities, racial inequities, and LGBTQ+ communities—areas frequently derided by the administration as "woke" or "illegal DEI"—at least several grants designed to support early-career physicists from underrepresented backgrounds have already been terminated.
Legal Challenges and Future Outlook
Legal experts are questioning the OMB’s very authority to impose such sweeping solutions. Kali Murray, a law professor at Marquette University specializing in administrative and intellectual property law, characterized the move as a "hall of famer move by Russ Vought" to expand the power of his office. She argues that the proposal allows the OMB to override existing congressional statutes that govern agency spending, setting the stage for significant legal challenges.
Once the final text of the rule is published, it is almost certain to face litigation. These lawsuits will likely challenge the OMB’s ability to prescribe the content of individual grants and to override congressional mandates. However, any resolution through litigation could be a protracted process, potentially taking years. Similarly, a subsequent presidential administration could attempt to undo the rule through its own formal rulemaking process, but this, too, would entail a multi-year undertaking.
This leaves current congressional pressure as potentially the most immediate and effective mechanism to compel the OMB to make serious revisions before the final version of the rule is released this fall. The unified opposition from Democrats and the significant concerns voiced by Republicans like Senator Collins underscore the broad, bipartisan apprehension about the profound and potentially irreversible harm this rule could inflict on American science, its global standing, and its ability to continue addressing humanity’s most fundamental questions. The stakes, as David Miller warned, are nothing less than the dismantling of the core principle that built "the greatest scientific enterprise in human history."
Joko Widodo
admin
Nila Kartika Wati
Lina Irawan
Eva Lovia