In November 2024, as he awaited the fallout from the presidential election results, Dr. Garen Wintemute gathered a group of his colleagues at UC Davis to plan how they would download the thousands of files of federal gun violence data they rely on. Their actions would turn out to be one of the first of many steps taken by experts across the gun violence research landscape to ensure their decades-long efforts could continue after a new administration took office.
Just one week into Donald Trump’s second term as president, the White House has moved to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization and passed a directive calling on public health agencies—including the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—to pause external communications with the public and others. The administration also passed a directive that attempted to halt trillions of dollars in federal funding for programs across the country, a decision that was rescinded just one day later. That about-face—and attempts to stem the disruption caused by the initial directive—did little to ease the concerns of experts who fear the administration’s attempts to grasp control of public institutions could smother their work in the immediate future.
“These actions are a direct attack on science—not just health, but science in general,” said Joseph Richardson, an anthropologist and epidemiologist at the University of Maryland who has studied gun violence for more than 20 years. “You can slowly see the pendulum shifting back towards treating [gun violence] as a law enforcement problem.”
For decades, researchers, physicians, and epidemiologists were stymied in their efforts to study gun violence as a public health issue, a link that was first made in the late 1970s. The CDC began funding gun violence research in the 1990s, as the rates of firearm homicide and suicide spiked, but lobbying by the National Rifle Association led to the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which effectively halted federal dollars for the research. It wasn’t until 2019 that Congress struck a bipartisan deal jointly awarding the NIH and CDC an annual $25 million to study gun violence.
The significant increase in funding led to a more diverse pool of scholars, who addressed long-ignored regions and aspects of firearm prevention, establishing first-of-their-kind hospital-based violence intervention programs in the south and implementing effective suicide prevention strategies amid increasing rates. Federal agencies have spent more than $137 million in gun violence research since 2020, a Trace analysis found, compared to the nearly $25 million spent in the five years prior, or the $500,000 spent annually in the decade before that.
Those at the forefront of this work, who acknowledge that the 2019 funding was allocated during the first Trump term, said they are anxious about the future of their work, and the gun violence epidemic by extension. They point to the now-empty Office of Gun Violence Prevention in D.C., and cuts to the safety board created to prevent school shootings. As the new administration takes measures to impede the public institutions credited with measuring, funding, and sustaining medical and scientific progress, experts said public mistrust of critical scientific investments may lead to a lack of scrutiny on a myriad of health issues, including gun violence.
“The next four years are going to be a real struggle to figure out how we can regain the trust that we lost at some point,” said Cassandra Crifasi, a researcher at Johns Hopkins who has been in the field for 15 years. “And I think many of us are a little bit perplexed still about how exactly we lost this trust, and the current [sort of] attack on science and the academy.”
Despite the looming headwinds, Crifasi said she and her colleagues are committed to their work. Similarly, Wintemute remembers the last time gun violence research faced dire straits, in the 1990s and 2000s, when “there was no money at all for research.” During that period, he used over a million dollars of his own money to continue to fund the research center at UC Davis. It is among the nation’s first university-based violence prevention centers, and may be a model for the future of the field in this new reality, he said. “There are these external constraints on what you do, but that doesn’t change your commitment.”
Other veteran gun violence researchers share that sentiment. For Richardson, who leads gun violence research in Maryland, the process of continuing gun violence research will involve rallying around state initiatives, philanthropic efforts, and getting a lot done with little, as has been the case for the majority of his career.
“For me and others, the direction that we are going to need to take is to rely upon the state offices of gun violence prevention to set the tone in light of everything that is going on [at] the federal level,” he said, noting organizations like the Black and Brown Research Collective, which is working to ensure researchers are supported and aware of how to navigate limited funding. “And we are preparing for it; every conversation is about how we move forward.”
For many researchers, the preparation is also centered around harnessing public datasets, and checking in on each other as they brace for the uncertainty.
“We will continue to do everything that we can as researchers, particularly in our center, to get information out on what works,” echoed Crifasi, who is based in Baltimore.
This story was produced by The Trace and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Also Read
- ‘Shocking’: What Supreme Court ruling on transgender policy means for California students
- SpaceX targeting early Saturday launch from Vandenberg of 25 Starlink satellites; sonic booms possible on Central Coast
- Lockdown at Carpinteria’s Aliso School Lifted After Report of Handgun Turns Out to be False Alarm
- Local Favorite Home Plate Grill in Goleta Announces Permanent Closure
- San Luis Obispo Announces Sweeping Crackdown on St Patrick’s Day Street Parties
What all the scientific studies have shown is that the problem is the ready accessibility of firearms, not a lack of enforcement, that is the root of our problems.
Any other assertion is without evidence, and a symptom of gun nut propaganda.
“ Federal agencies have spent more than $137 million in gun violence research since 2020,”
That’s a waste of money. Enforce the existing gun laws and lock the criminals up.
Penalties for Personal Use of a Firearm During a Serious Felony (Penal Code 12022.53 PC):
Using a gun: Adds 10 years to a felony sentence.
Firing a gun: Adds 20 years to a felony sentence.
Killing or seriously injuring someone with a gun: Adds 25 years to life to a felony sentence.
If California enforced these instead of ignoring them gun crime would drop significantly.
CHUFF – “The left is not interested in gun violence. It is interested in the getting rid of all firearms from the citizenry accept military and police.(sic)” – 1) That’s not really true and I’m sure you know it. No one is saying we should disarm citizens. 2) Even if it were, that would absolutely curb gun violence, so…..
About the administration’s view and valuing of science and research in the health fields, do ya feel safer now?
From STAT News. All links are paywalled.
“It was early yesterday morning — like 5 a.m. early — when the chaos began. Federal health employees started receiving layoff notices (also known as RIFs, for “reduction in force”) after last week’s announcement that as many as 10,000 workers were expected to be cut. STAT reporters woke up to texts and calls from workers at the affected agencies. “It’s started,” one message said plainly.
The range of the cuts reflect the breadth of all the work HHS does: Scientists dedicated to tobacco control, injury prevention, infectious disease, birth defects, reproductive health, substance abuse, veterinary medicine, antimicrobial resistance, and chemical contaminants in the food supply lost their jobs; so did people in human resources, policy, and communications departments. The cuts include rank-and-file staffers as well as high-level leaders — including a number who were offered the chance to transfer to the Indian Health Service.
As workers dealt with confusion and concern around the cuts, HHS posted on social media some photos of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with Jay Bhattacharya, the new director of the NIH, and Marty Makary, the new FDA commissioner. “We look forward to restoring trust, transparency, and excellence in public health,” the post read.
It was an all-hands-on-deck day here at STAT to cover the news. Here’s the rundown of our stories, which are continually updating, with more to come:
The need-to-know rundown of how it all went down: “Terminations hitting … on April Fools’ Day. So cruel,” one HHS employee who didn’t lose their job said to STAT. Some employees hadn’t seen the email and showed up to the office, only then to wait in a line outside so they could get in to clean out their offices.
How the CDC fared: The Trump administration has argued that the CDC’s mission has become too broad, and the agency should focus on infectious disease concerns. The bulk of the terminations hit units focused on other health issues, but there have been reports that divisions focused on HIV prevention and tuberculosis containment saw cuts. Experts both inside and outside the CDC told STAT they were worried that the country’s capacity to respond to any sort of public health threat has been dangerously eroded.
The FDA: The day the layoffs began also happened to be Makary’s first official day as FDA commissioner. His first email to the staff summarized his resume: “Dr. Makary is imminently qualified to lead the FDA at this important time in the health of our nation,” the email reads. It was a shaky start as cuts hit agency offices for media affairs, minority health, and administrative support staff. Regulatory leaders lost jobs with no input from FDA center leadership, sources said.
And the NIH: It was also Bhattacharya’s first day yesterday when directors of five NIH institutes and at least two other members of senior leadership were put on administrative leave or offered new assignments. Bhattacharya’s more measured message noted that the layoffs “will have a profound impact on key NIH administrative functions, including communications, legislative affairs, procurement, and human resources.”
But the cuts go beyond administrative personnel, affecting key scientists overseeing projects on sickle cell disease, neurodevelopmental disorders, pandemic preparedness, and more.
Why are some people being offered jobs at IHS? “I’ll just say it, I think it’s a way to try to get people to quit,” Phil Huang, director of Dallas Health and Human Services, said in a media briefing. While it is true that the IHS has a need for more staff, the openings are largely for jobs like physicians and nurses, not research scientists, analysts, and managers.
What about “radical transparency”? The layoffs included major cuts to teams across the agencies handling communications, media relations, and Freedom of Information Act requests. While Kennedy previously vowed to promote “radical transparency,” workers say the layoffs will severely hamstring HHS’s ability to relay critical health information to the public. “He only got half of that right — this is radical,” said Kevin Griffis, the former director of communications at the CDC who left several days ago.
The local impacts: Local public health figures, including Huang from Dallas, expressed deep dismay over yesterday’s federal cuts. The loss of federal expertise will likely compound challenges faced at the local level, especially in smaller places, said Lori Tremmel Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Losing just one multi-talented worker can destroy a rural health department.
And how the cuts could hit vulnerable Americans with disabilities: While the Trump administration has already proposed or made cuts to services like Medicaid that are critical to people with disabilities, Tuesday’s cuts — including the dismantling of the Administration for Community Living, which acts as a federal hub for disability education, policy and grantmaking — feel particularly targeted toward the disability community, experts said.