Key facts
- A new study argues that decades of influence from fossil fuel companies and libertarian networks have made US universities vulnerable to political attacks on research.
- The study links these efforts to increased corporate influence over university governance, faculty hiring, and research agendas, particularly in climate science.
- In 2025, the Trump administration froze billions in research funding and launched investigations into 75 institutions.
- Princeton University had $4 million in climate research grants canceled by the federal government.
- The Academic Freedom Index shows US institutional autonomy fell from 3.3 in 2019 to 1.7 in 2025.
- Some universities have preemptively shut down programs to avoid becoming targets of government scrutiny.
Decades of efforts by libertarian donor networks, fossil fuel companies, and conservative think tanks to reshape university governance and increase outside influence have left US academic institutions vulnerable to political attacks on research, according to a new study published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science. The study argues that this erosion of university autonomy has particularly impacted climate and energy research, making it susceptible to corporate interests.
Recent actions by the Trump administration in 2025 included freezing billions of dollars in research funding, launching investigations into 75 institutions, and pressuring colleges to sign agreements supporting administration policies in exchange for federal funding. Notably, $4 million in climate research grants at Princeton University were canceled, with scientists accused of fueling "climate anxiety."
Lead author Noel Healy of Salem State University stated that such actions can deter young researchers from pursuing sensitive topics, potentially shaping policy by influencing the questions researchers ask. He noted that scientists have begun removing terms like "climate change" from grant applications to avoid rejection, and some universities have proactively shut down programs to avoid becoming targets.
The study points to historical precedents, including efforts by electric utilities in the 1920s and fossil fuel companies in the 1950s to influence academic research and public debate. Corporate funding, sometimes with donor agreements that grant outside actors control over faculty decisions, has been a significant factor. David Koch's substantial donations to MIT and his role on its governing body are cited as an example of deep donor influence.
Between 2010 and 2020, six fossil fuel companies alone contributed over $700 million to US universities. Furthermore, donor-influence models have been incorporated into state law, with publicly funded libertarian academic centers established in several states, answering to legislators rather than faculty. Over 150 state bills targeting tenure, faculty governance, and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives were introduced between 2021 and 2023.
The authors contend that soaring tuition and student debt, linked to the corporate model of higher education, have contributed to public mistrust. They advocate for increased transparency in donor contributions and influence, and for faculty committees to have the power to reject funding that compromises academic freedom and the university's public mission. Model gift-acceptance policies, like one published by the UnKoch My Campus campaign, are suggested as a way for universities to empower faculty in reviewing and rejecting conditional gifts.