Trump Administration Cancels Misinformation Research Funding, Citing Free Speech Concerns

The Trump administration has abruptly canceled hundreds of National Science Foundation grants supporting research on misinformation and disinformation, marking a significant shift in federal research priorities. The cancellations follow President Trump’s executive order on “ending federal censorship,” which claims such research was used to limit social media companies’ free speech.

This policy reversal comes despite polls showing 95% of Americans believe misleading narratives are a problem requiring action from consumers, government, and social media companies. The defunding effectively hampers efforts to combat misleading information at a time when most Americans want greater intervention.

“Without research, the ability to combat misleading narratives will be impaired,” noted one researcher familiar with the situation, who explained the distinction between misinformation—misleading content shared by people unaware it’s false—and disinformation, which is deliberately generated and shared by those who know it’s suspect.

The Trump administration’s stance stems from allegations that the Biden administration used research on misleading narratives to pressure social media platforms into censoring content. However, this claim was rejected by the Supreme Court in a 2024 ruling, yet Republican politicians continue pressing the issue.

March 2025’s “censorship industrial complex” hearings explored alleged government censorship under Biden, while the State Department has begun soliciting all communications between government offices and disinformation researchers, searching for evidence of censorship.

These actions have created significant problems for researchers in the field, including death threats and harassment, particularly against women researchers.

Social psychologists and other experts studying misinformation examine the sources of misleading content, how it spreads, and potential ways to reduce harmful impacts. Many researchers view their work as enhancing free speech by informing the public about deception tactics, rather than restricting it.

The controversy partly stems from a misunderstanding about censorship. Constitutional definitions establish that only government—not citizens or businesses—can legally be censors. Private companies retain the right to moderate content on their platforms.

Ironically, Trump’s own social media platform, Truth Social, prohibits content deemed to “trick, defraud, or mislead” users, despite reports that 75% of conspiracy theories shared on the platform come from Trump’s own account. Similarly, Elon Musk’s X platform has faced accusations of suppressing critical content despite his free speech advocacy.

Republicans have repeatedly claimed social media companies unfairly target conservative content. However, research from 2020 shows conservative voices are actually amplified on social media networks. When conservative posts are removed or labeled at higher rates, studies indicate it’s because they’re significantly more likely to contain misinformation than liberal posts.

An April 2025 study further revealed conservatives are more susceptible to misleading content and more likely to be targeted by it than liberals.

Critics argue the administration is using disinformation tactics in its approach to this issue. The repeated claims about censorship and bias create what psychologists call the “illusory truth effect,” where just a few repetitions can convince people something is true.

Researchers have also identified a pattern of “accusation in a mirror,” where someone accuses opponents of transgressions they themselves are committing—in this case, an administration removing books from libraries and erasing historical data while accusing others of censorship.

Fact-checking, which can identify and discredit disinformation, has come under particular attack despite research showing it effectively reduces the transmission of misleading content. Studies of perceived effectiveness rate professional fact-checkers above algorithms and everyday users, and even conservatives often agree with specific fact-check decisions when shown the results.

As the debate continues, researchers suggest potential compromises, such as giving social media users the option to turn misinformation moderation on or off, as implemented on platforms like Bluesky. However, Trump’s executive order effectively prohibits research into such solutions.

“Instead of providing protections,” said one expert, “the order will likely weaken Americans’ defenses” against misleading information.