Academy of Science warns of ‘extreme crisis’ under Trump

The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), the country’s official national science academy, has issued a sharply worded public statement warning that science – and the international systems of scientific collaboration that sustain it – are “under threat” from the actions of the current United States administration under President Donald Trump.

Representing South Africa’s most distinguished scholars across all disciplines, ASSAf is mandated by law to advise the country’s government on matters of science, technology and innovation.

In a statement dated 30 April, it expressed “deep concern” over what it described as an “extreme crisis” facing South African science in the wake of abrupt US funding cuts and mounting restrictions on global academic cooperation.

As far as could be ascertained, the statement is the most forceful yet by an African science academy and adds weight to a growing US and international chorus of protest against the Trump administration’s escalating campaign to defund, disrupt and politically target science and higher learning both at home and abroad.

Since returning to office in January 2025 for a second term, Trump has moved swiftly to implement a self-proclaimed “conservative” agenda advanced under the so-called “Project 2025” framework. These include sweeping funding withdrawals – most notably through the cancellation of research grants administered by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and USAID – as well as new restrictions on international academic visas, the intimidation of university leaders, and repeated attacks on academic freedom.

From dialogue to declaration

ASSAf Executive Officer Professor Himla Soodyall told University World News its statement was developed in response to internal appeals from concerned members and it builds on two recent webinars convened by the academy.

The first, held on 27 March, examined the implications of US funding cuts for South African research and health services. The second, held on 16 April in the run-up to Freedom Day in South Africa, explored the broader relationship between science, leadership and ethics in times of geopolitical crisis.

Sharply worded warning

The resulting statement, adopted by ASSAf’s Council and issued by its president, Professor Thokozani Majozi, is marked by candour and directness.

It warns that “the science community in South Africa faces a moment of extreme crisis” and that the recent actions of the US have already “resulted in a severe reduction, and in some cases elimination, of funding, personnel and training that support South Africa’s scientific research, development and innovation enterprise”.

Systemic impact

While the immediate impact of US funding cuts has been most visible in biomedical research – particularly HIV and TB (tuberculosis) studies funded through the NIH and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) – ASSAf argues that the consequences reach much further. The threat, it says, is “systemic”, affecting the foundation and freedoms on which science depends.

The academy identifies four areas of “the gravest” concern:

• The erosion of long-standing research partnerships, with decades of collaborative progress put at risk.

• Damage to research and development infrastructure, undermining years of capacity-building.

• Disruption to scholarly mobility and training – a key pathway for early-career scientists and joint postgraduate initiatives.

• A broader assault on the values of academic freedom, integrity and dissent.

Call to action

Against this backdrop, ASSAf calls on the South African government to publicly reaffirm its commitment to these principles, to urgently mobilise alternative funding sources, and to engage with stakeholders in developing a coordinated national response.

Soodyall told University World News that the statement was sent to the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, Dr Blade Nzimande, on Friday 25 April, and that receipt was acknowledged the same day.

ASSAf now expects the minister to issue a public response and initiate formal engagement with the academy and other role-players on the issues raised.

South Africa’s wider response

South Africa’s wider response to US actions since Trump took office in January has been complex – at times combative, at others cautious.

In his State of the Nation Address (SONA) on 6 February, President Cyril Ramaphosa struck a defiant tone, declaring that South Africa “will not be bullied”. Without naming Trump directly, he warned against “the rise of nationalism, protectionism, and the pursuit of narrow interests” and asserted that South Africa would speak “with one voice in defence of our national interests”.

In the health sector, where US aid cuts hit hardest, the government initially earmarked an extra ZAR28.9 billion (about US$1.5 billion) in the 2025 budget to plug the gaps – although this allocation is now under review following the reversal of the proposed VAT hike and pending a revised Budget.

Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi has described the situation as a “wake-up call” and convened a consultative meeting in March to begin developing alternative strategies. These include redistributing healthcare workers, adjusting antiretroviral delivery schedules, and integrating PEPFAR-supported programmes into the primary health system.

Significantly, the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) – a statutory science body established by law and the largest local funder of health research in South Africa – has issued stark warnings about the potential collapse of research programmes following the withdrawal of US funding. Its President and CEO, Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, described the cuts as “catastrophic”. He warned that leading universities and research units across the country could face substantial funding losses, with some institutions affected on multiple fronts.

The SAMRC has prioritised emergency support for postgraduate students and early-career researchers, as well as the ethical termination of ongoing clinical trials if continuation is no longer an option.

‘Save our sector’

In the higher education sector, Universities South Africa (USAf) issued a strong statement on 7 February calling on its US research partners to “lobby aggressively” against the Trump administration’s decision to freeze foreign aid. USAf Chairperson Professor Francis Petersen stressed that global challenges like pandemics and climate change require cross-border cooperation, and that the US, too, stands to lose by isolating itself. “No one nation has it all,” he said.

USAf warned that the decision could unravel research partnerships and disrupt joint projects. It urged South African universities to diversify funding sources, while US institutions were called on to advocate for continued cooperation.

Back in the US

In the US, higher education leaders issued a joint statement on 22 April denouncing “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” in their sector. By 30 April, it had been signed by 568 university and college presidents and other higher education leaders.

The statement followed meetings convened by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

It followed mounting pressure on leading universities, including Harvard, Columbia and Johns Hopkins, which have faced threats ranging from the loss of tax-exempt status to restrictions on enrolling international students. AAC&U President Lynn Pasquerella described the cumulative effect of Trump’s executive orders, visa clampdowns and abrupt funding withdrawals as an “existential threat” to the autonomy of science.

International response

In March, Sir Peter Gluckman, the president of the International Science Council (ISC), warned of a broader breakdown in the social contract between science and society. In a keynote address republished by University World News, he argued that populism, nationalism and short-term political interests were undermining the trust, openness and cooperation needed to tackle global challenges.

Time will tell

ASSAf’s statement is the latest in a series of national and international responses to the US administration’s actions. Further developments are expected as affected governments, institutions and science bodies assess the long-term implications – and, in some cases, find the resolve to take a stand of their own. Whether such interventions will shift policy or safeguard research partnerships remains to be seen.