Public Concern about Threats to Public Health and Science Remains Modest 

In March 2025, our team conducted a public opinion survey to document the extent to which the U.S. public was aware of the rapidly emerging threats to public health and science, first initiated by the Trump Administration in January 2025. Despite the breadth and pervasiveness of those threats—including the cancellation of federally funded research grants, widespread firings of federal health workers, and removal of federal health and science data from public websites—we found that awareness was high but varied considerably across the types of actions. Democrats were significantly more aware of all actions compared to Republicans and Independents. We also found that nearly 1 in 5 respondents said they were personally affected by federal firings, and that both this personal experience and partisanship were related to their perceptions of the impacts of funding cuts. At the same time, many respondents—in some instances nearly 40%—reported not being sure about the consequences of these actions. 

In the months since then, the threats to public health and science have accelerated. Proposals to slash budgets have gone beyond the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to include the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other federal health and science agencies. Reductions in force (i.e., mass layoffs) have continued, with recent estimates amidst the government shutdown now topping one-third of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) workforce, as well as firings of scientists and administrators at other agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Concerns about the integrity of federally collected health and science data continue to emerge, and the expert panels that have long issued health recommendations for the public have been questioned and, in the case of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—which informs federal guidance around vaccine schedules—overhauled. 

To be sure, the scientific community has been sounding the alarm about these persistent threats by drafting op-eds, sharing stories of suspended grants and job loss with their personal and professional networks via social media, and advocating for change in Washington. And yet, much as in March, there has also been a flurry of other actions pursued by the Administration in policy arenas outside of public health and science and a persistent drumbeat of news events. How salient are the threats to public health and science amid these competing demands for public attention? 

To answer this question, we fielded a second, short survey module on the NORC AmeriSpeak Omnibus, a biweekly, nationally representative, mixed-mode survey of US adults drawn from the AmeriSpeak Panel (N=1,120). The survey was fielded during the week of September 25-29 (which followed all events described above, but preceded the October 1 federal government shutdown and subsequent layoffs of federal health workers, temporarily halted by judicial order). Analyses used NORC survey weights—based on national census benchmarks and balanced by sex, age, education, race/ethnicity, and region—to produce nationally representative estimates. Below, we discuss our key findings and implications. 

Declining Awareness of Actions Threatening Public Health and Science Since March

We found that majorities of the public report awareness of a variety of Administration actions threatening public health and scientific research. Awareness was lowest (39.5%) regarding the cessation of data collection for federal surveys, while awareness was highest for firings of workers (63.4%); other items all topped 50% awareness overall (see Table 1). Notably, among those items that were asked in both March and September, we observed substantial declines in awareness: Nearly 80% reported being aware of firings of scientists in March, while only 63.4% reported the same in September. Similarly, while 70.2% reported awareness of grant terminations in March, 54.7% reported being aware of these cuts in September. As in March, the salience of all of these issues was significantly higher among Democrats than Republicans and Independents, but declines in awareness held across the political spectrum. Importantly, 15-20% of respondents across items reported not knowing whether they had heard anything about these issues since January. 

Table 1: Any Reported Awareness of Key Actions Affecting Public Health and Science, by Partisanship (N=1,120)

Source: authors’ analysis.

Note. Fewer than 15 responses missing on any item. Items were randomly ordered. P values based on chi-square analyses. ^*Split ballot item, with no significant difference across groups in any reported awareness.

Stable Perceptions of Consequences Over Time

We also repeated survey measures asking respondents their beliefs about whether funding cuts to NIH would have positive or negative consequences. We found surprising stability: In both March and September, roughly 50% agreed that cuts would have negative outcomes, compared with 25% who agreed the outcomes would be positive. In other words, we did not observe any shift upward in perceptions that these outcomes would have negative consequences for academic institutions or patients—despite some media attention pointing out what negative effects had already occurred, like cutting funds for pediatric brain cancer research or universities reducing admissions for graduate programs. As with awareness, substantial proportions expressed uncertainty about the likely outcomes, with around one-third reporting neither agreement nor disagreement with a range of possibilities (see Table 2). 

Table 2: Agreement with Positive and Negative Consequences of NIH Funding Cuts (N=1,120)

Source: authors’ analysis.

Note. Overall agreement calculated by combining “agree” and “strongly agree” responses. “Don’t know” responses (<10 on any item) collapsed into “neither agree nor disagree”; fewer than 15 missing on any item. Items were randomly ordered and did not include the headers suggesting “positive” or “negative.”

These patterns suggest that many of the actions affecting public health and science are not yet impacting people’s daily lives. This is corroborated by data showing that, as of late September, few reported personal experience—measured as “you or someone you know (e.g., family member, friend”)—with having treatment provided through a clinical trial interrupted or stopped (7.3%); having difficulty accessing seasonal (e.g., flu or RSV; 6.7%) or COVID-19 (10.1%) vaccines; or having difficulty accessing health or science information (e.g., about vaccine recommendations, weather events; 11.8%). In addition, a nearly identical proportion reported personal experience with federal firings in September (17.5%) compared to March (18.0%), despite the considerable volume of firings happening during the intervening months. That said, in September we asked not only about experience with firings, layoffs, and/or departures in federal government but also in state or local government, universities and/or their hospitals, and nonprofit organizations, and over one-quarter (27.8%) of respondents reported personal experience with at least one of these layoffs.

Support for Cuts is Low, but a Large Proportion is Neutral

When asked whether they support or oppose cuts to federal funding of research—including basic science, medical, social science, and health equity research—less than one-third (26.5%-31.1%) of respondents voiced any support for such cuts (see Table 3). At the same time, the proportion of those who outright oppose these cuts hovered around 40%, and levels of opposition were not distinguishable by type of research. That is, respondents were not substantially more opposed to cuts to research on medical treatments than to research seeking to understand why there are disparities in health. Additionally, many respondents expressed ambivalence or were unsure: Between roughly one-quarter to one-third of respondents said they neither support nor oppose federal funding cuts to science. 

Table 3: Opposition to Cutting Federal Funding for Health and Science Research (September 2025) (N=1,120)

Source: authors’ analysis.

Note. Overall oppose cutting calculated by combining “strongly oppose cutting” and “somewhat oppose cutting” responses. “Don’t know” responses (<10 on any item) collapsed into “neither agree nor disagree”; fewer than 10 missing on any item. Items were randomly ordered.

Few in the public said they were likely to mobilize around the cuts in the short term, especially for the more time- and resource-intensive activities, such as attending a rally in support of funding (14.2%) or contacting elected officials (20.3%). However, more people were open to raising awareness among people they know (24.6%) or signing a petition (35.3%), and this double-digit likelihood of mobilization could still translate into meaningful downstream impact.

Moving the Needle on Public Attention 

These data tell a story of mixed public attention. Clearly, the general public does not experience threats to public health and science in the same way that the health and scientific research community does. One interpretation of the data is that a large swath of the public (one-third or so) is not aware of potential consequences to themselves or their family—perhaps, in part, due to the crowding out of such topics by other recent national events. They are unlikely to be personally experiencing the impacts of federal cuts to science or reduced access to health services and/or they may not be getting information explaining how they might be affected, although this could change over time. Consequently, they may not feel the urge to mobilize to oppose these cuts and related threats. (Indeed, both reported awareness and personal experience were only weakly correlated with mobilization intentions.) A key question to examine, then, is if more people were to have personal experience with negative consequences, how would they interpret them?

This is where continued advocacy and public engagement by the research community could be important: To help the public make connections between science and its impact on people’s lives. Some have argued for a national campaign to help forge these connections. Others have called for social scientists to pursue the “science of standing up for science,” recognizing that without public pressure on elected officials to defend science, policymakers may not act amid limited fears of electoral retribution. How to effectively promote public understanding of and support for scientific investment is an empirical question, but one for which nascent communication research exists. For example, recent studies have shown that storytelling and other messaging with evidence of how investments benefit society can shape public opinion. Other work has shown that messaging about science can bolster public support for and understanding of the scientific enterprise—which, in turn, may help to underscore both the benefits of public health science and its current precarity. 

Importantly, right now, federal funding of such communication work is not likely. Rather, research that aims to promote the value and centrality of science in people’s lives needs to be supported by foundations and researchers who have funds to spare. The scientific community also needs to think about partners in scaling successful strategies. And communication efforts are not a replacement for, but rather a complement to, the ongoing lobbying efforts of professional organizations (e.g., the American Association for Cancer Research [AACR]) in Washington in support of continued investment in health and science.

Authors’ Note

This work was supported by the Collaborative on Media and Messaging for Health and Social Policy (COMM HSP) and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant #79754). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Full data tables are available on COMM HSP’s website.

About the Authors