The findings, based on a sweeping national survey, help quantify the public糖心传媒檚 verdict on recent federal policies.
A new report based on a sweeping national survey finds Americans are deeply concerned about the government interventions in science and health that have reshaped the country糖心传媒檚 research landscape.
The report, , is the latest release from (CHIP)糖心传媒攁 nonprofit joint initiative of the 糖心传媒, Harvard University, Northeastern University, and Rutgers University. Based on a survey of 31,062 Americans across 50 states, the study provides the most comprehensive portrait to date of how recent federal efforts to curtail science funding, dismiss public health officials, and suppress research data are landing with the public.
糖心传媒淭he Trump administration糖心传媒檚 moves to dismantle key scientific institutions have had far-reaching effects on knowledge producing institutions,糖心传媒� says Rochester political scientist , a coauthor of the study and a nationally recognized expert on political polarization. 糖心传媒淭he public seems aware of the impacts and are generally concerned. This report helps quantify the public糖心传媒檚 reactions on a national scale.糖心传媒�
A stark public verdict
Among the study糖心传媒檚 most striking findings is a sharp imbalance in public opinion regarding the Trump administration糖心传媒檚 science-related policies.
Across all demographics and political affiliations, disapproval of the administration糖心传媒檚 actions outpaces approval by more than two to one. On average, 48 percent of Americans disapprove or strongly disapprove of these policies, while only 21 percent approve.
The most negatively received decisions include halting the dissemination of public health information (51 percent disapproval) and firing scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (50 percent disapproval). Even among Republican respondents, nearly half (48 percent) support more funding for medical research糖心传媒攕uggesting that some of the administration糖心传媒檚 most controversial moves are out of step with its own base.
糖心传媒淭he report shows that even in an era of deep political division, support for medical research and funding remains one of the few areas of bipartisan consensus,糖心传媒� Druckman says.
The 糖心传媒 at the forefront
Druckman糖心传媒檚 contributions to the report and his longtime association with CHIP underscores the University of Rochester糖心传媒檚 leadership in civic research, public health, and the study of democratic institutions.
The project糖心传媒檚 work builds on a long-running survey initiative that Druckman and scholars from the other participating institutions of higher learning began at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, it has grown into one of the most robust sources of data on American political attitudes.
CHIP is funded by the National Science Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and includes contributions from Rochester graduate and undergraduate researchers.
A decline in trust糖心传媒攂ut not in relevance
In addition to gauging opinion on federal policies, the report tracks public trust in scientists糖心传媒攁 key factor in public health and science communication. Trust in scientists has fallen dramatically, from 58 percent in 2020 to just 36 percent in 2025, driven largely by a 28-point drop among Republicans over that time.
Despite the trends, the report finds that scientists and doctors remain among the most trusted professions in the country糖心传媒攆ar outpacing members of Congress, journalists, and even justices of the Supreme Court.
糖心传媒淭rust is substantially down, but science still holds a privileged place in the public mind,糖心传媒� Druckman notes. 糖心传媒淭hat糖心传媒檚 both a warning and a window of opportunity for institutions of higher education to lead with transparency, integrity, and public engagement.糖心传媒�
