Advocating for federal academic research funding two months into the Trump Administration

The National Communication Association participated, as usual, in 2025’s annual meeting of the National Humanities Alliance (NHA) and the advocacy work by the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), held just two weeks apart in March. 

The NHA’s first-day programs were, with one exception, like any other year’s, in other words, business-as-usual, surprisingly. Sessions with titles such as “Careers in Public Policy for Humanities Graduates,” “Collaborating to Articulate Career Pathways to Undergraduates,” “Advocating for the Humanities at Home,” “Setting an Agenda for Student-Led Humanities Advocacy,” and others had topics identical or almost identical to NHA sessions at other years’ annual meetings. 

But this year’s NHA annual meeting had a record number of attendees, obviously because of the Trump Administration, which was addressed in the opening keynote session, “The New Administration and the Humanities in Higher Ed.” Moderated by Paula Krebs, executive director of the Modern Language Association, speakers were Terry Brown, vice president of academic innovation and transformation, American Association of State Colleges & Universities; Jody Feder, director of accountability and regulatory affairs, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; and Leanne Hotek, executive director of federal relations, University of Iowa. Hotek also has held key positions with the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities and the Association of American Universities (AAU). 

Speaking on Monday, March 10, the panel’s primary message was that they didn’t know much more than the audience did about what was happening, or will happen, to higher education because of the Trump Administration. With regard to news of federal grants from agencies such as National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)—which NHA members often apply for—or research grants from elsewhere in the federal government, the speakers counseled that individual administrators and faculty members need to stay in touch with their institution’s general counsels. Speaking individually with me after the session, however, Hotek conceded that many small institutions do not have full-time lawyers on their staffs and that even experienced university general counsels may not be well-prepared to deal with unprecedented actions and threats by the Trump Administration. 

A later session, “Advocating for Humanities Research on College and University Campuses,” included the introduction of a new research advocacy group by its co-founder, Shelome Gooden of the University of Pittsburgh, where she is assistant vice-chancellor for research in the humanities, arts, social sciences and related fields. The new group, the Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences Research Leaders Network, is for presidents/chancellors, provosts, vice presidents of research, and national academic research organizations, and is “focused on key research issues relating to HASS.” 

In Sept. 2025, the new Network will hold a “Convening” of 20 senior leaders and 20 national stakeholders, including funding agency representatives. It will focus on research impact and return-on-investment (ROI) to meet institutional, funder, and public priorities. (The Convening is being funded by an NEH Chair’s Grant.) 

NHA’s various panels and speakers were on March 10, followed by Capitol Hill meetings with Congressional staffs on th e 11th. COSSA’s advocacy days were March 24-25, with orientation and training on the 24th and Capitol Hill meetings with Congressional staffs on the 25th.  Following COSSA Executive Director Wendy Naus’s introduction of the federal budgeting process, deadlines, etc., the key session for attendees was Science Advocacy in Turbulent Times: Federal Agency Challenges, with outside experts, rather than insiders, each discussing major funders. Topics covered included the National Science Foundation (by Miriam Quintal, Lewis-Burke Associates), National Institutes of Health (by Ellie Dehoney, Research!America), Federal statistical agencies (by Steve Pierson, American Statistical Association), Department of Education (by Christy Talbot, American Educational Research Association), and the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Archives and international education (by Alex Klein, National Humanities Alliance).  

By March 24th, federal judges were beginning to make rulings reversing at least some of the Trump Administration’s decisions of laying off staff and/or cutting federal grant spending. So there was a slight bit of guarded optimism about at least some agencies that already had been cut. But DOGE had not gotten to the National Endowment for the Humanities yet (that’s happened since), and no optimism was offered about other DOGE targets, such as the nearly complete elimination of the Institute of Education Sciences in the Department of Education. (Note: Every year, the NCA uses data from the Institute of Education Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and other public and private agencies for its jobs/new PhDs report and other NCA materials.) 

Representing a national organization, I was placed for advocacy meetings with which state needed more representatives (in this case, Virginia) rather than where I live (which is Maryland). Other team members all also represented national organizations, but they also happened to each live in Virginia. Our targets that day were Senators Tim Kaine and John Warner, plus US Representatives Donald S. Beyer Jr. and Gerry Connally, all Democrats and all more sympathetic to social sciences, humanities, sciences, education, etc., than many Republicans. Staff members in every office told us that Republican members of Congress were uniformly supporting President Trump and his DOGE (“Department of Government Efficiency”), with no cracks in sight. The best argument to use with Republicans supporting administration cuts to research, staff members said, was that such cuts could harm economic and/or military competitiveness, but that even this angle had made little progress. 

Still, congressional staffers said that advocacy visits, such as those arranged by COSSA or NHA, are valuable to have on record, and that people opposed to federal research funds’ cuts need to keep on meeting with members of Congress from both parties.