UJ
—
The attack by President Donald Trump on prestigious universities poses a dual threat: it undermines the economic vitality of some of the nation’s most prosperous metropolitan areas and jeopardizes America’s standing in global competitiveness.
From bustling cities like Boston and Austin to the tech hubs of Seattle and Silicon Valley, these elite research institutions have been pivotal in driving growth across the country’s most vibrant economic regions. They consistently deliver scientific innovations and cultivate talented graduates who seamlessly transition into industries focused on pioneering technologies, including computing, communications, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and more.
“This reflects the essential economic landscape of America’s high-value advanced industries,” remarked Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Metro think tank. “It exemplifies American industrial policy in action.”
However, the Trump administration threatens to disrupt this economic powerhouse by halting research funding for major universities, reducing overall federal backing for scientific research, and deporting international students based on their political expressions.
“This impacts our constituents’ well-being and the future of our communities,” Boston Mayor Michelle Wu stated during an interview. The research funding being cut, she stated, “isn’t merely an immediate concern; these are investments in our collective future.” For those communities reliant on major research universities, blocking Trump’s initiatives represents “critical survival stakes.”
Despite some political gains for Trump in the upcoming 2024 election, regions surrounding these prominent universities overwhelmingly opposed him in the previous election. Thus, targeting elite research universities that conservatives label as bastions of “the woke mindset,” Trump may assume he’s only attacking territories already resistant to him. However, since these universities are deeply embedded in their local economies, attacking them inevitably affects the economic engines of those metropolitan areas.
Moreover, because such metropolitan areas are the primary incubators of scientific and technological breakthroughs, harming them threatens the nation’s global competitiveness, particularly against the rising challenge from China in critical sectors like artificial intelligence and electric vehicles. In the ongoing quest for 21st-century economic dominance, Trump’s broadside against the nation’s top research institutions might ultimately be seen as a significant act of unilateral disarmament.
The collaboration between government, academia, and business to foster scientific and technological progress has roots deep in American history. But this partnership truly evolved during World War II. Under the guidance of Vannevar Bush, a prominent engineer and university leader, the government enlisted academic scientists into the war effort on an unprecedented scale, including the Manhattan Project’s development of the atomic bomb. Bush’s groundbreaking 1945 report spurred the creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950, aimed at promoting foundational research in science and engineering. The National Institutes of Health has similarly provided long-term support for basic medical research.
The government’s role in nurturing key research further expanded following the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of the Sputnik satellite, a move that fundamentally reshaped federal support toward education and scientific inquiry. “Universities and government became entwined in relation to the future of our society,” noted Ira Harkavy, director of the Netter Center for Community Partnerships at the University of Pennsylvania. This synergy led to pivotal scientific advancements, including the creation of semiconductors and the internet.
In recent decades, foundational scientific research from top-tier universities has become the bedrock of America’s most innovative sectors, according to Martin Kenney from the University of California at Davis. Since around 1980, the U.S. “innovation ecosystem” has evolved into a three-step process: initiating with fundamental research at academic institutions, refined through startup ventures supported by venture capital, and ultimately scaled through acquisitions by larger firms or public offerings.
“That was how the United States chose to compete globally and develop the highest-end technology,” Kenney explained.
This progression is evident in many of the country’s most economically robust metropolitan regions. Increased direct employment and local expenditures by medical and academic institutions — often termed “meds and eds” by urban planners — are significant factors.
The economic spin-offs from major scientific and medical institutions could be even more substantial. Regions that host leading companies in fields such as biotechnology, computing, and AI generally revolve around elite universities and medical centers, which have not only spawned scientific innovations but also a critical talent pipeline necessary for industry growth.
Cities benefiting from this dynamic include Boston, Chicago, the San Francisco Bay Area, Houston, Los Angeles, and North Carolina’s Research Triangle (each with multiple top 100 recipients of federal research grants), as well as New York City, Austin, Seattle, and Madison, Wisconsin, each home to a flagship public university that ranks in the top 100 for grants.
A Brookings Metro analysis provided to UJ identified that out of the 100 U.S. counties generating the most economic output, 44 host a university ranked among the top 100 in receiving federal research funds. In fact, 41 of these high-output counties also contain at least one of the top 100 institutions graduating the most PhDs in science and engineering. (Additional counties, such as San Mateo near San Francisco and Essex near Boston, benefit economically from universities in proximity, even if they do not host one themselves.)
These counties generate economic activity that far exceeds their proportionate share. The 44 high-output counties housing at least one major research university constitute less than 1.5% of the approximately 3,100 counties in the United States. Yet, they produce nearly 35% of the nation’s overall economic output, as discovered by Brookings Metro.
“Many view the U.S. innovation system as a robust and permanent fixture,” Muro noted. “However, these systems are actually delicate ecosystems cultivated over half a century. This stands out as one of the great achievements of post-World War II American economic development, which could face serious disruption.”
The rapid expansion in Madison and its surrounding areas illustrates how these components work together. Many of the largest employers in the region trace their innovations back to research conducted at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, which ranks No. 15 among federal research grant recipients, relying on university graduates for their workforce, according to Zach Brandon, president of the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce.
This includes a concentration of companies advancing medical treatments and technologies, led by Epic, the large software firm that developed the MyChart app, founded by a University of Wisconsin alumnus. The success of such enterprises has positioned Madison as the fastest-growing area in the state, illustrating that “the future is being shaped by research at our world-class universities,” Brandon emphasized.
On various fronts, the Trump administration is now jeopardizing this academic-to-business pipeline. It has canceled, suspended, or scrutinized billions of dollars in federal funding to seven institutions ranked among the top 100 recipients of government research funding: Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania, with Northwestern and Cornell recently added to the list. These institutions have been primarily targeted due to their responses to campus protests regarding the war in Gaza, as well as their policies on racial diversity in admissions and cooperation with immigration enforcement.
Furthermore, an additional 19 universities in the top 100 federal grant recipients also received notification in a March letter from the Education Department about potential funding losses for failing to adequately address antisemitism concerns. Separately, Johns Hopkins University suffered a loss of $800 million in grants and contracts due to significant cuts at the U.S. Agency for International Development that resulted in the layoffs of approximately 2,000 employees.
Simultaneously, the administration is slowing down the disbursement of National Science Foundation grants, with one recent analysis revealing that the NSF approved about 50% fewer grants during the initial two months of Trump’s second term compared to the same timeframe last year. Last week, the NSF announced it would fund fellowships for only half as many graduate students as it did the previous year.
The White House did not respond to inquiries regarding the economic impact of its policies on scientific research and major universities.
The most significant policy announcement impacting academia has been the National Institutes of Health’s February decision to reduce the percentage of federal research funding universities can allocate to ongoing overhead costs. Universities have depended on these so-called indirect expenses to build the infrastructure necessary for scientific research, from lab constructions to hiring support staff.
The administration has justified this shift by claiming it aims to direct more federal funding into research rather than auxiliary activities. However, scientists and university leaders warn that this change will necessitate significant cutbacks in research initiatives. Earlier this month, a district court in Maryland ruled against Trump’s policy alteration, but several similar lower court decisions have already been overturned by the conservative-majority Supreme Court.
Another concern for supporters of university research is the administration’s ongoing attempts to deport international students, including several based on their political expressions related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. “If you are a talented student from India or China, why would you choose to study in the United States?” Kenney posited.
These coordinated actions have caused a divide among academic administrators, with some institutions acquiescing to the administration’s demands (such as Columbia) and others vowing to resist (like Princeton). However, the repercussions of these cuts will resonate well beyond university campuses.
“It’s not just university leaders who are anxious; regional economic developers and local business figures will be extremely worried about the disruptions ahead,” Muro added.
Brandon, representing Madison’s business sector, encourages the revival of a consortium comprising local chambers of commerce to advocate for federal support for scientific research. “Today’s fundamental research paves the way for tomorrow’s applied research and future innovations,” he asserted. “If we cut off that supply, we may sustain ourselves for a few years, but eventually we will face an innovation drought.”
Similarly, Mayor Wu has rallied a bipartisan coalition of 45 local officials to file a lawsuit aimed at blocking the administration’s reductions in indirect funding for NIH grant recipients. Trump’s offensive against research universities, she remarked, “represents a new form of targeting, compared to any past actions, where specific communities and sectors are being singled out and penalized.”
While Trump appears to have gained some ground in 2024 within the most economically productive regions, they largely voted against him. According to Brookings Metro, Vice President Kamala Harris captured 40 of the 44 high-output counties that house at least one leading research university. Those counties accounted for nearly 40% of Harris’ nationwide votes, while the four top counties Trump won among them contributed only 5% of his votes.
The domestic political ramifications of Trump’s actions against significant universities perhaps pale in comparison to the international ramifications. Some scientific and business leaders have likened China’s remarkable recent advancements in AI technology to a modern descendent of the four decades-old Sputnik shock that galvanized the nation during the late 1950s.
Yet, Trump’s response contrasts sharply with the proactive measures taken in the past, which heightened federal investment in research and education. “If we encounter a ‘Sputnik moment’ related to AI and related technologies,” Muro cautioned, “this approach does not appear to be a viable solution.” Trump’s intensifying conflict with America’s leading universities and the vital metropolitan areas they influence may rally his base against “coastal elites,” but the ultimate victor in this ongoing struggle could very well be China.
