The findings, based on a sweeping national survey, help quantify the public's 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's research landscape.
The report, American Attitudes Toward Government Interventions in Science, is the latest release from The Civic Health and Institutions Project (CHIP)-a nonprofit joint initiative of the University of Rochester, 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.
"The Trump administration's moves to dismantle key scientific institutions have had far-reaching effects on knowledge producing institutions," says Rochester political scientist James Druckman, a coauthor of the study and a nationally recognized expert on political polarization. "The public seems aware of the impacts and are generally concerned. This report helps quantify the public's reactions on a national scale."
A stark public verdict
Among the study's most striking findings is a sharp imbalance in public opinion regarding the Trump administration's science-related policies.
Across all demographics and political affiliations, disapproval of the administration's 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-suggesting that some of the administration's most controversial moves are out of step with its own base.
"The 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," Druckman says.
The University of Rochester at the forefront
Druckman's contributions to the report and his longtime association with CHIP underscores the University of Rochester's leadership in civic research, public health, and the study of democratic institutions.
The project's 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-but not in relevance
In addition to gauging opinion on federal policies, the report tracks public trust in scientists-a 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-far outpacing members of Congress, journalists, and even justices of the Supreme Court.
"Trust is substantially down, but science still holds a privileged place in the public mind," Druckman notes. "That's both a warning and a window of opportunity for institutions of higher education to lead with transparency, integrity, and public engagement."
