Davis, CA – The Trump administration’s proposed cuts to federal research funding have sparked widespread concern among UC Davis scientists, physicians, and biotech entrepreneurs, who warn of devastating consequences not just for academia but for the entire local and national economy.
In response, UC Davis researchers and medical professionals are organizing a “Stand Up for Science” rally on March 7 at the California State Capitol to push back against what they see as an attack on scientific progress.
The funding cuts—affecting agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—are expected to result in a $49 million loss for UC Davis alone. Scientists say these cuts will cripple research, stall medical advancements, devastate local economies, and cause an exodus of scientific talent from the U.S.
“This isn’t just about research—it’s about jobs, economic stability, and America’s future as a leader in innovation,” said Dr. Theanne Griffith, an assistant professor at UC Davis School of Medicine and a key organizer of the rally.
The crisis has spurred a rare public outcry from scientists, many of whom typically shy away from political activism. Dr. Geoanna Bautista, a neonatologist at UC Davis, said the proposed cuts are particularly devastating for pediatric research and rare disease treatments, areas that already receive limited funding.
“Our children already have very, very, very minimal funding as it is, and they will be disproportionately harmed—not only on the scientific level but even in their healthcare access,” Bautista said. “Most of the diseases we study aren’t profitable. Without federal support, they simply won’t get researched.”
“Graduate students at UC Davis are asking, ‘Will there be money for us to continue our research?’ And we don’t have an answer,” Ramsing said. “Many schools are already canceling admissions because there’s simply no funding available.”
Brandon Zipp, a UC Davis alum and biotech entrepreneur, explained that the ripple effects of federal budget cuts extend beyond the university and into private industry.
“I wouldn’t be where I am today without federal research funding,” Zipp said. “Right now, I’m fundraising for my startup, and a lot of venture capital groups are just holding tight, waiting to see what happens before making investments. New medicines aren’t going to be developed because of what’s happening at the federal level.”
Zipp warned that these cuts will set science back years, if not decades. “This is going to affect all aspects of society,” he said. “Science is universal. It’s not about politics. It’s about progress.”
UC Davis is one of the largest economic drivers in the Sacramento region, employing thousands of faculty, researchers, and support staff. Dr. Griffith compared the potential fallout of these funding cuts to what happened in coal mining towns and Rust Belt cities.
“What’s going to happen if we lose that money is the exact same thing that happened to the Rust Belt or the coal mining towns in West Virginia,” Griffith said. “We are going to be decimated. Home prices could fall, jobs will be lost, and businesses that rely on the university will suffer.”
These concerns aren’t hypothetical—research funding doesn’t just support scientists. It funds administrative staff, lab technicians, electricians, plumbers, and other essential workers.
“Every dollar invested from the NIH leads to two and a half dollars of economic activity,” said Elisa Zhang, a UC Davis researcher. “This isn’t just about scientists in labs—it’s about blue-collar and white-collar jobs, from plumbers to office assistants, all of whom rely on federal investment in research.”
The effects of the cuts could be catastrophic for California’s agricultural economy as well, according to Charis Ramsing, a UC Davis graduate student specializing in plant pathology.
“The USDA is a key funder of agricultural research and the reason why our agricultural system is so robust in the U.S.,” Ramsing explained. “Without that funding, we are jeopardizing food security and the ability to fight plant diseases that could wipe out entire crops.”
California is a global leader in agricultural production, and UC Davis plays a critical role in researching disease-resistant crops. Ramsing noted that 90% of the nation’s processing tomatoes come from the region, contributing $2 billion to the state’s economy. The impact extends beyond tomatoes—UC Davis-developed strawberry varieties account for much of California’s $3 billion strawberry industry.
“The USDA is on high alert, screening for diseases and pests that could devastate our crops,” Ramsing said. “And now, the people responsible for stopping agricultural disasters are being laid off because of these budget cuts.”
The NIH has long been a premier public funder of biomedical research, and without continued investment, experts warn that lifesaving medical treatments will be delayed or abandoned.
“Every single one of the 210 FDA-approved drugs from 2010 to 2016 was linked to NIH-funded research,” Zhang said. “The NIH isn’t just a bureaucratic agency—it is a lifeline for medical advancements.”
Beyond that, every $1 of NIH investment generates an additional $8.50 of private sector research and development. If federal support declines, the entire biotech industry will suffer.
“The federal government helps get early-stage technologies to a point where they are investable,” said Zipp. “Without that support, startups will collapse, and major companies will stop taking risks on new therapies.”
For young scientists, the future is already looking grim. Graduate students are facing uncertain job prospects, and some universities—including Vanderbilt and the University of Southern California—have already paused admissions for Ph.D. programs due to funding uncertainty.
“Graduate students at UC Davis are asking, ‘Will there be money for us to continue our research?’ And we don’t have an answer,” Ramsing said. “Many schools are already canceling admissions because there’s simply no funding available.”
Even for those who want to stay in science, the financial burden is becoming unsustainable. Bautista, who has dedicated her career to medicine, highlighted how student loan debt is crushing physicians and researchers alike.
“I already have a $500,000 loan that was supposed to be forgiven soon, but now that’s off the table,” she said. “If federal funding is cut, no one is going to want to become a doctor or a researcher. It’s just not sustainable.”
Despite the bleak outlook, the scientists organizing the March 7 rally remain determined to fight for their field.
“This rally is a way to remind people—and our elected officials—that we are here, we care, and we are not going anywhere,” Griffith said. “This is just the beginning.”
Organizers hope that the rally will serve as a wake-up call to the public, showing that science isn’t just an abstract concept—it’s the foundation of modern society.
“Science is an orchard,” Zipp said. “You plant the trees today, and 20 years from now, the next generation reaps the benefits. If we stop investing in science now, we are robbing future generations of medical treatments, food security, and technological advancements.”
Zhang added: “This is 0.8% of the federal budget. It’s a rounding error. And yet, it determines the future of medicine, technology, and economic prosperity in this country.”
As UC Davis researchers prepare to take their message to the State Capitol, they hope the public will understand that this fight isn’t just about academia—it’s about the future of the country.
“We are on the verge of gutting American scientific leadership,” Griffith warned. “And once it’s gone, it will take decades to rebuild.”
The Stand Up for Science Rally will be held Friday, March 7, at the California State Capitol’s West Steps.For more information, visit the Eventbrite page.
The illegal slashing of science and knowledge based activities will have a huge outsized negative impact on college and university communities. That is their objective. Communities that focus on knowledge don’t vote for dictators.
Trump is not a dictator, he was elected by the majority and will of the people.
Plurality
Alright, if this helps you Trump got more votes than the other candidate and was elected by the will of the people.
Does that make you feel better?
That would be called a plurality
Something is amiss that enterprise features lost dogs instead of stories like this.
The University of Pennsylvania is reporting that it will lose over $200 million per year. Yesterday’s news reports about the Columbia University grants loss was $400 million per year. It is hard to imagine UCD won’t lose at least as much as Penn and Columbia. The effect on UCD employment, the local economy, and the VMT calculations in the Village Farms EIR will be huge. Local and campus jobs will evaporate and the projected new residents of Village Farms will have to seek jobs to pay their mortgage across the Yolo Causeway or down I-80 toward the Bay Area. The VMT miles in the EIR assumed a predominance of local Davis employment for the residents. With that now scuttled by Trump, does the EIR need to be revised or done over?
To answer that question the underlying calculations that produced the VMT totals need to be shared and explained to the public by the EIR consultant and the City.
“does the EIR need to be revised or done over?”
No.
Don, how do you think the consultant and City should disclose the impact of the Trump cuts on the assumptions of the EIR?
Why should they?
The reason is simple David. One of the first principles of Business Law is that once you recognize that you have done something unlawful, erroneous, or misleading, your first obligation is to mitigate/eliminate the wrongdoing. The EIR as currently written is both erroneous and misleading thanks to Trump’s actions.
You should be looking at CEQA not business law…
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), changed circumstances may necessitate a revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under specific conditions. The legal standard for requiring a Supplemental, Subsequent, or Addendum EIR is established in Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162–15164.
Key Situations Requiring a Revised EIR
1. Substantial Changes to the Project (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1))
• If there are significant project modifications that were not analyzed in the original EIR and could cause new or more severe environmental impacts, a revised EIR is required.
• Example: A housing development originally approved for 500 units is expanded to 800 units, increasing traffic, water usage, and greenhouse gas emissions beyond the original analysis.
2. Substantial Changes in Circumstances (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(2))
• If new external conditions (such as regulatory changes, natural disasters, or new scientific data) arise after the original EIR was certified and these changes result in new or more severe significant impacts, a revised EIR may be needed.
• Example: A project in a low-risk flood zone at the time of the original EIR is later reclassified as a FEMA high-risk floodplain (Zone A) due to updated flood maps, necessitating new mitigation measures.
3. New Information of Substantial Importance (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3))
• If previously unknown significant environmental effects or new feasible mitigation measures are identified, a revised EIR is required unless they would not substantially change the impact assessment.
• Example: Discovery of an endangered species habitat on the project site after EIR certification may trigger a revised EIR to address new biological resource impacts.
When a Revised EIR is Not Required
• If none of the above conditions are met, the agency may prepare a CEQA Addendum (Guidelines § 15164), which is a minor update that does not require public circulation or new hearings.
• Subsequent environmental review is not required if new information does not reveal new significant impacts or make mitigation infeasible (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College District, 2016).
Conclusion
A revised EIR is required when substantial changes to the project, environmental circumstances, or new information introduce significant new impacts not previously analyzed. However, minor modifications may be addressed through an addendum or supplemental review without requiring a full EIR recertification.
****
Where you do you see the Trump administrations actions falling under these conditions?
David Greenwald said … “
That is pretty straightforward. The Trump elimination of hundreds of millions of dollars of research grants to UCD clearly are “3. New Information of Substantial Importance (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3))
• If previously unknown significant environmental effects or new feasible mitigation measures are identified, a revised EIR is required unless they would not substantially change the impact assessment.
The reason why that is the case is that the local employment assumptions in the EIR used to extrapolate the VMTs needed for project residents to go to their place of employment are drastically downsized by the Trump cuts.