Cascading Effects of the 2025 Executive Orders on U.S. Faculty: A Thematic Analysis

Background and Purpose: The United States has led global research since World War II, largely driven by the strong partnership between academia and the US government. However, the 2025 Executive Orders (EOs) have imposed significant cuts to federal research funding and dismantled DEI initiatives within federally funded research. Notwithstanding these sweeping changes, little is known about how academics perceive and experience the impact of these policies beyond anecdotal media reports. To address this gap, the current study utilized qualitative survey data from the Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity in Academia (IDEA) survey to examine how policy changes are perceived among academics and how they have affected their research.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey with multiple-choice and text-based answers was conducted among 173 participants. Subsequently, the participants were invited to answer three open-ended questions regarding the impact of the EOs, and 66 participants answered the open-ended questions regarding (1) personal impacts of the EOs, (2) institutional support or lack thereof, and (3) concerns about the new administration’s changes. Reflexive Thematic Analysis was conducted. Four team members independently read all responses, conducted line-by-line coding, and held analytic review meetings. In order to maintain reliability, potential mismatches between codes and the conceptual framework were discussed and resolved through the meetings.

Results: Among 66 respondents, 75.8% were female, 81.8% held doctoral degrees, 68.2% were from social sciences, 62.1% indicated they sought multiple funding sources, and 54.5% belonged to public institutions. Analysis yielded 252 code instances, 219 of which were categorized into four major levels: structural, individual, institutional, and community. Each level comprised distinct subthemes, with cascading effects extending to the broader societal level. At the structural level, freeze in federal funding and restrictions on DEI data collection and activities were identified as primary themes. At the individual level, subthemes included financial and career instability, emotional distress, and safety concerns. At the institutional level, responses ranged from active support (strong/moderate) to passive response. At the community level, concerns centered on LGBTQIA+, people of color, immigrants, and the future scientific community. At the larger societal level, respondents expressed concerns about loss of democracy, academic freedom, and destruction of civic infrastructure.

Conclusions and Implications: The study revealed that federal policy changes not only affected individual scholars but also had cascading effects across structural, individual, and broader societal levels, such as loss of democracy. Participants expressed concerns about marginalized populations, future generations of scholars, and society. Given this interconnectedness of their responses and cascading effects of the EOs, policymakers should recognize possible cascading consequences of their actions. At the institutional level, leaders should commit to protecting their missions, faculty, and vulnerable populations. Individual scholars should produce and disseminate empirical evidence related to policy change. Ultimately, the academic community should commit itself to protecting democracy, civic institutions, and equity.